Sitting of 4 November 1987

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

    Pollution
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further measures are proposed by Her Majesty's Government to ensure that industrial and toxic pollution of the North sea is ended.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): The Government are determined to ensure that pollution of the North sea is as low as practicable. I therefore look forward to chairing the second international conference on the protection of the North sea later this month and to discussing with ministerial colleagues from the other North sea states further measures to protect the North sea. The United Kingdom is committed to ensuring a successful outcome to the conference, but this will depend on all the North sea countries being prepared to take the necessary action.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Secretary of State accept that, against the background of the operations of ships such as Vulcanus II in the North sea, more control is required of the pollution in the North sea? I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for referring to the North sea conference, because that presents him with an opportunity of achieving some progress in the matter. Will he consider setting up a United Nations regional sea programme, the like of which obtains in the Caribbean and the Mediterranean, to prevent this mindless, nautical vandalism from continuing in the future?
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the incineration of toxic waste. He might be interested to know that the United Kingdom produces 2 per cent. of the total incinerated in the North sea, whereas more than half of it originates from Germany. Perhaps he is pointing the finger at the wrong country.
    Secondly, in relation to conferences about population of the seas, I would welcome being able to take part in a conference on the pollutants in the Baltic, the Mediterranean or many other seas that are far worse than the North sea.
    Mr. Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we welcome the initiatives that his Department is taking in this matter? Will he tell us a little more about the progress that has been made in clearing up estuarine pollution, particularly in the Humber and other such estuaries?
    Mr. Ridley: Certainly. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He might be interested to know that about £200 million
    916
    has been spent on cleaning up the Thames, about £130 million on cleaning up the Tyne, among the east coast estuaries, and similarly on other rivers. The result is that 43 per cent. of the inputs of heavy metals from rivers now comes from the Rhine, 28 per cent. from West Germany, and a smaller proportion than from those two areas from the United Kingdom.
    Ms. Quin: What specific proposals will the Secretary of State present to the Council of Europe Environment Ministers at the end of this month? Does he accept that if he does not take an initiative in this matter the United Kingdom will continue to be seen as an arch polluter of the North sea and not seriously interested in the problem?
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Lady clearly has not been listening to my answers. She might like to know, further, that only 1 to 3 per cent. of heavy metal inputs from sewage dumping comes from the United Kingdom, so she has grossly misrepresented the position of the United Kingdom, which is one of the cleaner countries in relation to the North sea. I have a full programme of trying to get the other countries to come into line with us on cleaning up the North sea. I shall not, of course, reveal full details of our position for the conference, but I hope that it will be successful.
    Sir John Farr: My right hon. Friend, in his Green Paper, said that the National Rivers Authority would be responsible for cleaning up coastal waters. When does he expect to set up the NRA, and will he confirm that he will give it real powers, so that the condition of some of our coastal waters, and the whole of the North sea, will be transformed for the better?
    Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the NRA, which has been generally welcomed. I believe that it will make an additional contribution to cleaning up the rivers, which are a major source of pollution to the seas around our coasts. We shall not have authority to set up the NRA until Parliament has passed the necessary legislation, but I shall see what I can do to begin to assemble those parts of it that it would be proper to do in advance.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: The Minister is being a little disingenuous and is misleading the House. Is it not a fact that on 24 November, at the North sea conference, the Conservative Government will be in the dock again as one of the worst polluters of the North sea; that, as well as putting liquid industrial waste into the North sea, we dumped 2·2 million tonnes of solid industrial waste last year; that we are the only country still dumping sewage sludge into the North sea—25 per cent. of our sewage sludge is so dumped — and that the Government's refusal to act in any significant way on sulphur emissions is also polluting the North sea? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this Government show a reckless disregard for the environment, and that nitrates in rivers are also getting into the North sea and polluting it?
    Mr. Ridley: I know that it is acutely disappointing for the Labour party to have to admit that it cannot knock the United Kingdom with impunity, but I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the solid waste that we put into the North sea is put in by the collieries on the Durham coast. It is not toxic, nor is it polluting. If those solid wastes were not to

    917
    be allowed to be put into the sea off Durham, there would be several colliery closures, which would not be exactly what the Labour party seeks.
    The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that there is no harm in dumping sewage sludge into the sea. Many countries do it. The harm is done when there is heavy metal content in that sludge. Our contribution has decreased to only 1 to 3 per cent. of heavy metal being deposited in the North sea. Therefore, on that ground, the hon. Gentleman is wrong, too. He may not have realised that a large programme has been instituted — [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions. Why should I not answer them? I know that he does not like the answers.
    The hon. Gentleman might have forgotten that a major programme of desulphurisation of power stations, both existing and future, has been instituted, which is a bigger contribution than many have made towards desulphurisation.

    Rates
    Mr. Devlin askasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the number of people in England currently paying the full domestic rate; and what number are eligible to vote in local council elections.
    The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Michael Howard): On the basis of the latest figures, there are about 12·6 million paying domestic rates in full in England compared with 35·8 million eligible to vote in local council elections.
    Mr. Devlin: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that if one tried to put this iniquitious system before the House today it would fail? On that basis, does he agree that the time has come to press forward with the community charge as soon as possible?
    Mr. Howard: Yes. It is precisely because no other proposal offers the advantages in accountability that the community charge offers, and because accountability is the last thing that the hon. Gentlemans' friends in local government want, that they are so desperate in their opposition to our proposal.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I hope that the Minister is not trying to mislead the House by the answer that he gave. Households including many people pay domestic rates. At the moment, how many people contribute to domestic rates by virtue of being households? That is the first question.
    My second question——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. In fairness to everyone, there should be only one question.
    Mr. Howard: The bills go to one person in the house, and 12·6 million people receive them.
    Mr. Heddle: Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that of the 18 million ratepayers who should pay rates one third do not pay them in full or in part? Will he further confirm that that does nothing for local democracy and that it is necessary, in order to strengthen local democracy, to introduce a fairer, more broadly based system as soon as possible and to build in all possible safeguards to ensure that the poorest section of the community does not suffer?
    Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend. The new system will be fairer than the present system, and it is becoming increasingly recognised as such.
    Mr. Rooker: Does the Minister accept that the 12 million spouses of the direct ratepayers to whom he referred will not take kindly his remark that they are not contributing to the rates? That was a very unfair point. Does he accept that, for Opposition Members, universal franchise is not negotiable—as implied in the question and his answer to it—either nationally or locally? The ability to vote must never be related to the ability to pay.
    Mr. Howard: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's hesitation in coming to the Dispatch Box. Last month he said that he did not want to be sent naked into the debating chamber. However, he is sitting here today and he is not a pretty sight. Conservative Members hope that his hon. Friends will clothe him as soon as possible.
    A recent study for the Audit Commission showed that spouses and others who do not receive the bills are three times less likely to know even that local rates have increased, still less what their level is. That is the truth of accountability.

    Local Authority Expenditure
    Mr. Harrisasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for encouraging local councils to curb overspending.
    Mr. Howard: Under the present rate support grant system, grant pressures and rate and precept limitation will continue to encourage local authorities to restrain spending. The community charge will bring the full pressure of local accountability to bear on spending decisions.
    Mr. Harris: In order to improve efficiency, will my hon. and learned Friend encourage local authorities, on a voluntary basis, to implement the contracting provisions of the Local Government Bill now before the House before it becomes law?
    Mr. Howard: Yes. The Audit Commission has identified more than £400 million of savings a year that can be achieved in the short term without waiting for the provisions of the Local Government Bill.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister realise that, far from overspending, local authorities are at present unable to meet the needs of their local communities and the demands of the ratepayers who elect them? Is it not time that the Government changed direction and allowed local authorities to meet the needs of the community rather than continually having to cut back?
    Mr. Howard: The savings identified by the Audit Commission offer those local authorities a ready means of meeting their electors' needs.
    Mr. Baldry: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the best ways of curbing over-spending, would be to introduce the community charge speedily to make local authorities accountable once again to those who provide much of the money that they spend?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why we are pressing on with our proposals.
    Dr. Cunningham: What does the Minister have to say to the Conservative councillors controlling the London

    919
    borough of Barnet, which includes the Prime Minister's constituency, who have rejected the Government's proposals to introduce a poll tax? Is not one of the fundamental reasons why increasing numbers of Conservative councillors are rejecting these proposals that, among other things, the Government intend to take powers that will allow them retrospectively to alter council's budgets and levels of income? What can be the purpose of standing for democratic election at local level if Ministers have the power retrospectively to change the finances, budgets and planning of every local authority in the country?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is not right about the attitude of Conservative councillors to our community charge proposals. On the subject of community charge capping, the fact of the matter is that, regrettably, even when the community charge is in force, some councils —I hope very few—controlled by the Labour party may still engage in irresponsible behaviour and spending. It would be an abdication of responsibility for the Government not to have a reserve capping power at their disposal.

    Football
    Mr. John Carlisleasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to discuss with the football authorities additional measures to combat hooliganism; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Pendryasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he is scheduled next to meet the football authorities to discuss issues affecting the sport.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): I last met them on 19 October. As a result, I shall shortly be meeting, with the Football League, those clubs which have not achieved the minimum 50 per cent. ground capacity level agreed with the authorities in February and have not produced clear police advice that the level which has been achieved is the optimal at present to deter hooliganism.
    Mr. Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend agree that the behaviour of footballers on the field can also influence the fans on the terraces, and that the intended prosecution of three players in Scotland should be a salutary reminder to all footballers that they must behave more responsibly, or accept the consequences?
    Mr. Moynihan: I cannot comment on the specific case in point, because the matter is to be brought before the procurator fiscal, but generally I strongly deprecate indiscipline and violence on any field of play. Governing bodies in sport have a duty to take tough disciplinary action. No sportsman is above the law, and it is quite right that behaviour at a sporting event should not be immune to the law, either on or off the field of play.
    Mr. Wigley: In view of the exemplary behaviour of Welsh teams in European competitions, including the European Champions cup and other European cups, has the Minister spoken to officials of the Football League and deplored the decision not to postpone the games this Saturday in which Welsh international players are involved, although a similar postponement is being allowed for those games in which English players are taking part?
    Mr. Moynihan: I have a great deal of sympathy for the Welsh players' request to postpone matches, but the decision is entirely a matter for the Football League. I hope, however, that even at this late stage it will reconsider its decision.
    Mr. Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) for not having called him next. Mr. Pendry.
    Mr. Pendry: In view of the recent bouts of football hooliganism in many European countries, notably the Netherlands and the Soviet Union, will the Minister assist the Football Association in bringing to the notice of UEFA the, by contrast, much-improved scene at home, so that English football teams can speedily return to European club competitions?
    Mr. Moynihan: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree, we still have a long way to go, but important steps have been taken. International co-operation to deter hooliganism is essential. That was my main purpose in attending the German-English friendly, where close international police liaison and a comprehensive package of crowd control measures inside the ground were in place. Further liaison through the Trevi group is being achieved by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
    Mr. David Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that the members-only scheme at Luton Town football club has been an unqualified success? In the 1985–86 season there were 102 arrests and four stabbings, and 97 people were dealt with by St. John Ambulance. In the following season there were no arrests, and there have been no arrests this year either. Does my hon. Friend also agree that until the Football Association and the Football League are prepared to introduce a 100 per cent. membership scheme there will be hooliganism both inside and outside football grounds?
    Mr. Moynihan: I applaud Luton's approach. There is compelling police evidence that the circumstances that made it 100 per cent. right for Luton do not apply to every other club, but clear determination and putting an effective package of measures in place can he successful in starting to tackle hooliganism. I particularly congratulate my hon. Friend and his colleagues on the example that they have shown.
    Mr. Conway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the curbing of football hooliganism is not simply a matter for the football authorities? The responsible board of Shrewsbury Town football club hosted a match against Middlesbrough, during which 80 fans were arrested and 20 policemen were taken to hospital, and it expects the legal authorities to play their part in combating hooliganism. Will my hon. Friend persuade his Government colleagues to back support for the Magistrates' Association so that meaningful sentences can be passed against those convicted of crimes of violence?
    Mr. Moynihan: I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend's point. I shall certainly take up the specific points that he raised with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and I have no doubt whatsoever that he will pay close attention to them.
    Ms. Walley: Does the Minister agree that one of the main ways to curb football hooliganism is to provide facilities to ensure that it can be a family sport? If he is not

    921
    prepared to do so, will he say why? We should not encourage the sort of hooliganism that we have just witnessed from Tory Members. Does the Minister agree that, in the interests of promoting football as a family sport, we should provide money to the Football Grounds Improvement Trust so that it can give improvement grant-aid of 50 per cent. towards expenditure for work on family enclosures at clubs such as Port Vale FC? Does he agree that these grants should be resumed as one way of curbing hooliganism?
    Mr. Moynihan: Important benefits can undoubtedly be derived from family and community schemes. As that was the thrust of the point that the hon. Lady was making, I agree that family schemes make an important contribution.
    Mr. John Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that the schemes introduced by York City FC and Scarborough FC are progressing well? Together with the considerable improvements that have been made in ground safety measures and crowd segregation by the police, those schemes ensure that the majority of supporters can watch football in peace and safety. As to the incidents in Scarborough this summer, is it not abundantly clear that even with 100 per cent. participation in membership schemes, those who misbehave and conduct themselves in a violent manner must be banned from grounds? Is it not the role of the courts to ensure that that occurs?
    Mr. Moynihan: As my hon. Friend knows, exclusion orders are being used this season. Thus, the latter part of his question is answered.
    As to the former part, I am concerned that Scarborough FC has not achieved a 50 per cent. ground capacity membership scheme or provided adequate police evidence that the current level of the membership scheme is optimal. For that reason, I and the Football League have called it in.
    Mr. Denis Howell rose—[Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members seem to be becoming a little excited.
    Mr. Howell: I offer the Minister all-party support for his attack on the discrimination against the selection of Welsh footballers this week. As to the question about further proposals, as I understand it, the Minister is advocating random breath-testing inside football grounds. How much will this cost, who will pay the bill, what is the lawful authority of any steward seeking to breathalyse a supporter, and how practical will it be when 1,000 spectators a minute will be entering the more important grounds 10 minutes before the kick-off?
    Mr. Moynihan: There is no doubt that drink-related incidents of hooliganism are commonplace. Therefore, the Football League has agreed with the police to inquire into the possibility of stewards inside the ground — therein lies the lawful authority — having breathlysers to test those suspected of excessive drinking. A number of clubs have said that they are willing to enter into such a scheme. It is essential that every possible measure is tried and tested to deter the hooligan.

    Rent Arrears
    Mr. Andrew Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has about the level of council rent arrears in England.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Marion Roe): The latest available comprehensive figures on rent arrears owed to local authorities, taken from the subsidy claim forms, show that at 1 April 1986 accumulated arrears in England totalled over £211 million, or over 5·7 per cent. of the total rent collectable. A list of arrears owing to individual local authorities was placed in the Library on 10 December 1986.
    Mr. Mitchell: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her first appearance at the Dispatch Box. Does she agree that the collection of rent arrears owes nothing to local party politics, but everything to efficiency and management? Does she agree that the failure to make these collections is a scandalous misuse of valuable resources?
    Mrs. Roe: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Arrears of this size place a totally unnecessary burden on ratepayers and on the vast majority of careful and responsible tenants who pay their rents on time. Councils which let arrears build up are certainly not helping the people whom they allow to get into debt. They are certainly wasting millions of pounds that could be spent on repairs and upkeep for the benefit of all their tenants.
    Mr. Bermingham: Does the Minister not agree that very often arrears arise in families with extremely low incomes and that this is the cause of some of the arrears? Does she also agree that it is better to allow those arrears to accumulate than to dispossess families of their houses and put them on the street?
    Mrs. Roe: I do not accept that high rent levels lead to arrears because tenants cannot afford to pay. Local authorities have discretion to set rents to reflect the location, size and amenities of their dwellings, although it is true that we continually seek to persuade local authorities to make rents high enough to ensure that sufficient funds are available for repair and maintenance. The housing benefit system exists to help tenants who are in real need.
    Mr. Hayward: Can my hon. Friend confirm that two of the worst offenders are Southwark and Lambeth councils? Will she tell us whether she has considered using any form of attachment of earnings system or recommending such systems to councils to enable them to retrieve some of these massive arrears that councils have run up?
    Mrs. Roe: My hon. Friend is quite right. The two local authorities that he mentioned are two of the worst offenders. Of course, we cannot do the local authorities' jobs for them. They are the landlords and it is their duty to collect their rents. We are more than ready to help any local housing authority that wants seriously to improve the quality of its housing management. I remind the House of our priority estates project and estate action programmes, which together will work on almost 300 of the worst estates in Britain. A specific objective of those will be to get better management, including, of course, the reduction of rent arrears.
    Mr. O'Brien: Will the Minister tell the House to what extent the changes and cuts in housing benefit have influenced the total rent arrears? Is she aware of the massive repossession of houses by building societies, particularly since the cuts in supplementary benefit paid to people to help with their mortgage interest repayments?

    923
    From 1 April that will be aggravated by the changes recently announced by her colleague. Will she now defend Britain's tenants and householders?
    Mrs. Roe: There is no evidence to support the view that delays or difficulties in the housing benefit system can account for the extraordinary differences that exist between the performances of apparently similar councils in collecting rents. For example, in April 1986 Walsall reported rent arrears of over 12·5 per cent. of its total roll. At the same point Wigan had kept the arrears down to 2 per cent. The Audit Commission agrees that the only possible explanation is different levels of management competence.
    Mr. Favell: Can my hon. Friend tell the House what proportion of council house tenants now receive housing benefit? Is it true to say that with housing benefit at its present level there is no earthly reason why any council house tenant should get into arrears with his rent?
    Mrs. Roe: I am unable to give my hon. Friend the figure for which he asks, but I can assure him that housing benefit is available for those on low incomes who need that help.

    Nuclear Waste
    Mr. Ernie Rossasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairman of NIREX to discuss the disposal of nuclear waste.
    Mr. Ridley: I have had discussions with the chairman of NIREX from time to time. We last met on 22 October.
    Mr. Ross: Will the Secretary of State condemn the irresponsible activity of companies such as Consolidated Environmental Technologies, which, for commercial purposes, purport to speak authoritatively on behalf of NIREX about the dumping of nuclear waste? Will he confirm that there is no intention to dump nuclear waste off Dundee or Tayside? What action does the Secretary of State intend to take against these unscrupulous companies and their activities?
    Mr. Ridley: I understand that Consolidated Environmental Technologies has, on its own account, been looking at sites in the North sea where it might suggest how to work out the techniques for deep disposal under the seabed. None of the work has been done for NIREX. At this stage I am not in a position either to rule in or rule out any particular site in the United Kingdom, because NIREX is doing its studies. Until it comes forward with some suggestions, I cannot tell the House what those might be.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Since understandable anger has been generated as a result of NIREX's proposal to consider dumping nuclear waste in the seabed off Sellafield, will the Minister ensure that NIREX realises the anger felt on both sides of the Irish sea and realises that people should not be put at risk or the sea polluted?
    Mr. Ridley: I must say to the hon. Gentleman that it was not NIREX that suggested that plan, but the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts). He visited Sellafield, and I quote from a newspaper—the only source I have —that states:
    "Labour has decided to back British Nuclear Fuels' plans to store nuclear waste under the sea off its Sellafield reprocessing plant as the only solution to the waste problem."
    924
    I must tell the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) that NIREX is more cautious and, possibly, more expert than the hon. Member for Bootle and has not yet made any proposals of any sort.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when he expects NIREX to be able to announce the results of its current survey? Is he aware of the widespread anger and concern in Scotland, where many sites have been rumoured as possible areas for dumping intermediate nuclear waste, not least at Durn Hill near Portsoy on the edge of my constituency? Is it true that there will be a statement next week, and can he guarantee that the House will have a full opportunity to debate such issues?
    Mr. Ridley: NIREX will be issuing a discussion document that on 12 November in which it will put forward the strategies it is working up and will invite public comment on its proposals. I must repeat that neither in that document nor at this time has any suggestion been made about any location that is favoured or ruled out. We are discussing techniques and methods for carrying out the work that must be undertaken in due course.
    Mr. Jack: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the main points of public concern about the nuclear industry is the disposal of waste? The concept of concentrating the disposal of that waste on such sites as Sellafield would do much to assuage public concern on this matter.
    Mr. Ridley: I believe that everybody realises that, whatever the future of the nuclear programme — I believe that it has an extremely good future— there is waste now that must be disposed of. Having ruled out shallow sites, such waste must, as I said in May this year, go to deep sites. It is right to give NIREX the opportunity to do all the studies it needs to ensure that the best solution is found for the ultimate disposal of waste. I shall not prejudge what it might say, but hon. Members will be able to comment when they see the consultative document from NIREX.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: Does the Minister not accept that there are no proposals by BNFL or anyone else to dump any nuclear waste under the sea and that the Labour party does not support any proposals to dump waste in the North sea? The only thing that the Labour party has supported is the possible exploration of sites for the disposal of low-level and intermediate waste. Will the Minister undertake that NIREX and the Government will not use special development orders again, as they did for the last four sites that the Government had NIREX investigate, as that alienates the local community? Does he not accept that a public inquiry is necessary and that that should take place at BNFL if its investigations reach a furher stage than at present?
    Mr. Ridley: I must explain to the hon. Gentleman that I was not being critical of him earlier, but was merely welcoming his sensible recognition that, the waste must be disposed of and that as I announced in May, it is correct to look for deep sites. I welcome his support for the principle. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I cannot bring myself to suggest that particular sites should be used, although he has kindly suggested that that site should be in the constituency of his hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). However, that was jumping

    925
    the gun. That was the only suggestion that I made. We must await any proposal from NIREX before considering how we can take it further.

    Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation
    Mr. Morganasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to reduce the number of people who have to live in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
    Mr. Ridley: The proposals in our recent White Paper are aimed at increasing the amount of rented accommodation available. Meanwhile, we shall continue to encourage all those concerned to make better use of the existing housing stock.
    Mr. Morgan: What reaction would the right hon. Gentleman expect from the homeless to the outturn figures given by the Chancellor yesterday, which showed an £80 million fall in housing expenditure this year compared with last year? When does he expect to announce the raising or scrapping of the 20 per cent. maximum on the use of council house receipts?
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman may not have got it quite right from yesterday's announcements. He will be pleased to hear that I have announced an extra £45 million of capital allocations during the current year for local authorities to tackle homelessness and other housing needs. I also announced an increase of £384 million over this year's figure for capital investment in housing for 1988–89. Those are sizeable increases in the provision that is being made to deal with the shortage of homes to rent. Coupled with our proposals in the Housing Bill soon to come before the House—which hopes to bring into use many of the empty private sector properties—that is a major contribution to increased provision.
    Sir George Young: Following the excellent speech at the Conservative party conference by the Minister for Housing and Planning, when will the Government come to a conclusion on the possible extension of the transferable discount scheme as a means of tackling homelessness in London?
    Mr. Ridley: We are looking at that possibility, but I am a little confused about the extent of the bed-and-breakfast system in London at the present time. We have just heard that 631 out of 1,600 rooms booked for bed-and-breakfast by Camden borough council turned out to be unoccupied when inspected. That shows that of the £24 million which Camden is paying annually, some £9 million is apparently being spent on empty rooms for non-existant bed-and-breakfast places. We have a right to demand that this be administered more accurately and that the figures be given correctly.
    Mr. Soley: Perhaps the Secretary of State would like to have a word with the Home Secretary about the houses that he is prepared to demolish, which have been empty for up to nine years and which could be used for some of these people. As the right hon. Gentleman is now accepting that there is a problem in the rented sector—and empty houses cause this problem—will he confess that 1 million homes have been lost from the rented sector since 1979, over half of which have been in the private sector? Why is it that Conservative Governments, both in 1957 and now, have presided over the worst ever loss to
    926
    the rented sector? Is that not an explanation of why so many people are suffering the misery of bed-and-breakfast and homelessness?
    Mr. Ridley: With 550,000 empty private properties and 113,000 empty council properties, the first recourse must be to find ways of bringing those properties into the market so that people can occupy them. That is an infinitely preferable solution to the hon. Gentleman's solution the other day, when he said that he would look at ways of relaxing planning consents on the green belt. I think that we have a better answer than he does.

    Storm Damage
    Mrs. Fyfeasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's latest estimate of the cost to local authorities of the recent storms and floods.
    Mr. Ridley: I do not yet have sufficiently reliable information to provide the estimate requested.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman recalls another great storm in 1968 which hit Glasgow and the west of Scotland, when 250,000 houses were serverely damaged and 21 people were killed. Does he recall that at that time the Labour Government gave the local authorities concerned 75 per cent. of the cost of storm damage? Will he emulate the example of the 1968 Labour Government?
    Mr. Ridley: Over a 1p rate for counties. That is precisely what we have done.
    Mr. Moate: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reaction from my own county of Kent to the Government's assistance has been somewhat less than ecstatic? If we rightly expect local authorities to respond immediately with urgency and efficiency to emergencies, should they not be more certain of the arrangements that are in place? Should we not ensure that the maximum that any county can contribute is the 1p rate and no more?
    Mr. Ridley: For many years local authorities have been well aware of the proposed Bellwin scheme to be used in cases of emergency. It is perfectly right that we should have expected them to prepare their budgets with that possibility in mind. There has been some misunderstanding about where storm expenditure will fall. It is likely that much of what does not fall within the Bellwin scheme will qualify for additional capital allocations if the work can be properly capitalised. It will either be covered by the capital allocations, which I mentioned in my statement the other week, or it will fall within the Bellwin scheme. That is not generally recognised.
    Mr. Molyneaux: In view of the wide variation in powers and status of local authorities in the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, will the Government ensure that there is a degree of flexibility in the administration of compensation schemes?
    Mr. Ridley: At this time it is difficult to tell precisely what costs are incurred under each of the various headings. There was damage which immediately arose from the emergency, there was damage which was insurable and which falls to capital account, and there may be a small element of cost which was insurable, but which was revenue and therefore cannot fall to the capital

    927
    account. The vast bulk of the expenditure falls either in the first or second category and is therefore covered. I give the right hon. Gentleman the undertaking that he wants: we shall try to interpret the matter as flexibly as we can. I realise that it has been a major occurrence for local authorities. We are trying to he as helpful as we can.
    Mr. Rowe: I am sure my right hon. Friend is aware that my county of Kent, for example, is covered with many massive fallen trees and that it will take thousands of man hours to remove them. He may also be aware that the Trust for Conservation Volunteers, as far as I can make out, is working out a leisurely five-year scheme towards helping in the replanting of trees. Will he try to make sure that some major effort is now made to organise volunteers to help farmers and others to remove the fallen trees that are littering their land? Will he consider a nuclear arrangement for calling in volunteers in future emergencies?
    Mr. Ridley: I have every sympathy for those in the south-east counties who suffered mammoth damage, particularly due to fallen trees, during the great storm. Arrangements for dealing with trees in commercial forests or on farmland are for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, although I have tried to help in cases of damaged trees of amenity value in parks and gardens of all sorts by getting the Countryside Commission to give discretionary assistance to clear up the damage and replace the trees. On the main private sector and commercial interests, my hon. Friend should address his question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
    Dr. Cunningham: Like his original statement on storm damage, is not the Secretary of State's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) far from candid? It is absolutely untrue for the Secretary of State to continue to claim, as he has done again today, that he will refund 75 per cent. of the costs to local authorities. Penalties did not exist in 1968. How will he explain to the Conservative-controlled East Sussex county council, which faces a bill of £12 million at least, that it will get only about £1·5 million from him? It will have a bill in excess of £10 million and, as a consequence, will lose between £6 million and £7 million in grant, which will be clawed back by the Treasury. Is not the reality of the con trick that the Treasury is likely to end up making a profit out of the scheme?
    Mr. Ridley: No, somebody is conning the hon. Gentleman. The large bulk of the expenditure to which he referred falls to capital account. A number of authorities insure their capital stock, so they can claim insurance money and put right the damage on capital account at the expense of the insurance company. Those that are not insured will have to borrow. It must be right that the money that they have saved through not paying insurance premiums should, to some extent, be matched by the cost of borrowing. I have already made it clear that the capital allocations will be made available when we have a better idea of the scale of the damage.
    Mr. Yeo: Is my right hon. Friend aware that not only east Sussex but Suffolk is concerned about the consequences of spending the proceeds of a 1p rate? Although I entirely endorse the requirement for authorities to spend a 1p rate, may I ask my right hon.
    928
    Friend to consider those cases where, through spending that money, an authority and therefore the ratepayers are penalised, and his Department or the Treasury gain? Will he undertake sympathetically to consider all such cases?
    Mr. Ridley: We considered that point both before and after my statement. If an authority has put aside a sum of money in its budget as a contingency, it obviously has also allowed for the grant consequences of that decision. Authorities knew that that was the position, because they were aware of the Bellwin rules that made that entirely clear from the beginning. What authorities have not realised, and I hope that they do now, is that the vast majority of the expenditure that they have incurred will fall either to the Bellwin scheme or to the capital account, and will therefore be covered either way.

    Rating Reform
    Mr. Wrayasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many responses he has received to his consultation document "The Community Charge" published in December 1986.
    Mr. Howard: The booklet on the community charge was not a consultation document. We received over 1,200 responses to the consultation paper published in January 1986. Twice as many respondents supported the abolition of domestic rates as wanted to keep them; and the community charge received more support than any other replacement for the rates.
    Since the consultation period ended we have not kept detailed records of the letters received. Our proposals have, however, received widespread support.
    Mr. Wray: Does the Minister agree that this particular scheme was brought about because of the crippling revaluations in Scotland and the forced increases in rates. because of cuts in Government grants? Does he further agree that the scheme is fraudulent and dishonest and that a quarter of the population will suffer — mainly the unemployed and the elderly? Does he accept that the scheme is not fair because it is not based on the ability to pay? The Government have paid no heed to the organisations, ratepayers and churches that oppose the scheme, and it should be scrapped immediately.
    Mr. Howard: The proposals merit none of the epithets applied to them by the hon. Gentleman. We shall make full provision, by way of rebates, for those who need help to pay the community charge. We shall listen more carefully and more responsively to Opposition Members when we know their proposals. However, I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman on one point—it is true that keeping the existing system would involve a revaluation of domestic properties that would lead to as great an upheaval in England as there was in Scotland in 1985.
    Mr. Squire: Could my hon. and learned Friend help me? Last week the Government announced that an estimated 16·7 million people would pay more under the new system than they pay now. However, in addition to the 17 million plus who pay no rates and will be estimated to pay community charge, more than 2 million existing ratepayers, especially in inner London, will pay more. Can my hon. and learned Friend tell me how to reconcile those figures?
    Mr. Howard: I am not sure that I entirely follow my hon. Friend's figures. In an answer that I gave last week

    929
    I said that households that would gain from the community charge involved 9·9 million people and that households that would lose overall involved about 7 million people. That seems to be a sensible way of looking at the effect of the proposals.
    Ms. Abbott: Is the Minister aware that the community charge in inner London will be at least £600 per head? Is he aware that whatever he cares to call it, in reality it is a poll tax that will force many people not to register to vote and that those people will be among the poorest? Is the fact that the poll tax will cause many poor people and their children not to register to vote an intentional, or unintentional, effect of the scheme?
    Mr. Howard: No, there is no effect in terms of the electoral register. A survey published last week indicated that electoral registration was not being affected at all by the proposal, nor is it the case that the community charge will be at the level to which the hon. Lady referred. The figure to which she referred indicates the level at which the community charge would be if councils continued to spend at their present levels. I am confident that the effect of the charge will be to moderate council spending in inner London as elsewhere.

    Rates
    Mr. Gillasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when was the date of the last revaluation of domestic and business properties for the purposes of fixing rateable values.
    Mr. Howard: 1973.
    Mr. Gill: Will my hon. and learned Friend accept that the failure by successive Governments to implement regular revaluations has brought the rating system into disrepute? Does he further agree that this is part of a deliberate and stealthy policy by the Civil Service to discredit local government? Finally, will he confirm that under Government proposals for a community charge local authorities will be dependent upon central Government for up to 75 per cent. of their funding?
    Mr. Howard: The original decision to postpone the revaluation was taken by the Labour Government in 1978. It was sensible not to proceed with a revaluation pending deliberations as to what proposals we intended to put into place. The failings and defects of the present system go far beyond anything that a revaluation, either then or now, could be expected to remedy.
    Mr. Rooker: The Minister mentioned the consequences of a revaluation in answer to a previous question. Does he remember the Secretary of State's predecessor telling the House that the consequences of revaluation would be that 1 million households would end up paying 80 per cent. more? He himself said this week that if a revaluation was done on capital values, 2·5 million would pay 50 per cent. more. In reality, under the poll tax 2·7 million households will end up paying more than 80 per cent. extra in local taxes.
    Mr. Howard: The effect of the community charge proposals will be to replace a desperately unfair system, in which very often the poor pay more and not merely the same as the rich, with a fair, accountable system of local government finance in which every adult will contribute the same amount, subject to rebates for those who need help.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the concern of industry, particularly manufacturing industry, at the revaluation of commercial property and the possible resulting leap in the rate burden in certain areas which will be added on to costs? Furthermore, can my hon. and learned Friend assure the House that the uniform business rate will be pitched as low as possible to reflect the fact that businesses pay directly for many of the services that they receive from local government?
    Mr. Howard: The uniform business rate will be pitched at a level that will reflect the continuation of the contribution of business to the cost of local government at broadly its present level. Of course, business will benefit substantially from the statutory guarantee which we intend to put into place that the business rate will not increase in any year by more than the rate of inflation. As to revaluation, may I assure my hon. Friend that I expect the manufacturing sector of industry to benefit particularly from the revaluation that is under way.

    Rating Reform
    Ms. Armstrongasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements he will make to assist people on low pay living in (a) Derwentside district and (b) Wear Valley district following the introduction of the community charge.
    Mr. Howard: There will be community charge rebates of up to 80 per cent. for people on low incomes and compensation within income-related benefit rates towards the 20 per cent. minimum contribution.
    Ms. Armstrong: Is the Minister aware that the estimates for Durham county, and especially for Wear Valley, show that 70 per cent. of the people who live there will pay over 20 per cent. more than the current rate that is levied? Is he further aware that people in areas such as mine, which have suffered enormously from de-industrialisation, have taken low-paid jobs to try to ensure a future for their communities? Will he allow those people to live with dignity by ensuring that they have a future, despite their poverty?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Lady's figures are based on assumptions for local government spending which need not be valid, and I hope that local authorities will take account of the level of community charge in assessing their future spending. I ask the hon. Lady to take note of the estimates that have been made, especially those in a recent independent study, of the effects of revaluation on low-priced terraced houses in the north, which would suffer badly in a revaluation of domestic properties.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may have noticed, Mr. Speaker, that during the past 24 hours it has been reported fairly widely that the former chairman of the Tory party, the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), has got a job as a non-executive director——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me stop the hon. Gentleman there. He must know that I have absolutely no responsibility for that.
Mr. Skinner: You have.
Mr. Speaker: Absolutely not.
Mr. Skinner: Hear me out, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: This may be helping the hon. Gentleman's friends who are waiting to sign the ballot book, but he must make the point of order relevant to me.
Mr. Skinner: You are the custodian of the Register of Members' Interests. It is becoming apparent that, by getting such jobs, people can avoid the real responsibility and conflict of interest that may occur. In this case, people not only vote for measures but take part in the preparation of Acts of Parliament which transfer money to the private sector and subsequently line their pockets by putting their hands in the till at British Telecom.
I want you, Mr. Speaker, to have another look at the way in which the Register is compiled. Let us have a separate compartment for those people who make money after they have voted in their capacity as Ministers or in some other capacity. The public believe that this stinks.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should make his representations to the Select Committee on Members' Interests. It has nothing to do with me.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If one were to pursue that line, I wonder whether it would be appropriate to list those Members—largely, if not totally, from the Labour party—who are here under trade union sponsorship and who participate in debates in which trade union interests are concerned.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have tabled two questions and have discovered a blocking answer dating from 12 November 1984. I wish to raise with you a section from "Erskine May". The questions relate to the amount of moneys paid to several companies for the storage of foodstuffs in Yorkshire, Humberside and the north-west.
In the past, it has been the practice of successive Administrations to refuse to answer. Apparently, hon. Members can ask a question in a new Parliament only to find out whether the Minister is answering questions on that subject. "Erskine May", on page 342, puts it like this
"Where, however, a Minister has refused to take the action or give the information asked for in a particular question, he may be asked the same question again after an interval of three months; and where successive administrations have consistently refused to answer certain classes of questions, Ministers may be asked once a session whether they will now answer such questions."
"Erskine May" continues by giving some examples of the type of question involved. They include:
"discussions between Ministers or between Ministers and their official advisers or the proceedings of Cabinet or
932
Cabinet committees; security matters including the operation of the security services, operational defence matters including the location of particular units; and details of arms sales to particular countries."
"Erskine May" points out that, in addition, questions on the secret services and security are not allowed.
It seems quite outlandish to suppose that the amounts of money that are paid for the storage of food that is not used can line up with the security services and operational defence matters. It is not likely that we shall throw corn or butter at a presumed enemy. As at least one of the storage companies has paid money to the Conservative party, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider whether this category of answer should be widened. The doctrine that is laid down in "Erskine May" should not be wide open so that the relatively humdrum question of storing food is treated as a matter of major importance. I would ask you to deliberate on this serious matter and to rule that Ministers are obliged to answer questions so that we can see how much the taxpayer, is paying, often to firms that have financed the Tory party, for storing food in our country.
Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Does it follow directly from the previous point of order?
Mr. Forth: Yes. Should not the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) be advised to seek out an hon. Member who has had the privilege of serving in the European Parliament in Strasbourg? If he were able to find such a person, with two political jobs, who travelled frequently to Strasbourg and who had the opportunity of questioning the European Commission there, might not that hon. Member be able to ask the question that the hon. Member for Bradford, South wishes to ask, with much more ease than he could in this House?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has raised an important matter. I should like to look into it. I shall then communicate with him.
Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you, Mr. Speaker. help us before next week's debate on the subject of the research assistant of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have no knowledge of any debate next week. It has not been announced, and I know nothing about it.
Mr. Benn: I am not trying to be difficult, Mr. Speaker, but you said that there would have to be a debate on the matter. My point does not necessarily hinge on the debate, but it is relevant to it.
I understand that for some time, and unknown to the House, an unofficial security committee of Members of all parties has been meeting to consider vetting, which, apparently, has been going on for some time without the House being informed. I should be grateful if, before the debate — or, indeed, in any case — you could make a statement to the House about that committee—who set it up, what authority it has and what recommendations it has made. In my experience, there has never been a committee of the House whose existence, membership and operations have been unknown to the House. I am not suggesting that you can give an answer today, but the matter is highly relevant to the discussion of my hon. Friend's case.
Mr. Speaker: It is no secret that an advisory committee on security has existed in the House for many years—indeed, I served on it long before I became even a Deputy Speaker. The committee is of long standing. I have no knowledge of any debate on this matter next week.
Mr. Benn: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, what you have just said is new to the House — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, it is. I learnt of this committee quite unofficially, only in the past few days. Its existence has a direct bearing on one of the most controversial issues that the House will have to discuss. If there is an advisory committee, who set it up, on whose authority was it set up, who are its members, what does it do and what recommendations has it made? Will arrangements be made, either by you, Sir, or through the Leader of the House, for that information to be at our disposal when we debate these matters in detail?
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: I think that I can help the right hon. Member and the House. This committee has been in existence since at least 1975. Its membership at that time was reported in Hansard, so I think the fact that it exists is not unknown.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we not right in thinking that this is the advisory committee of which the former right hon. Member for Wakefield, our colleague Walter Harrison, was a prominent member? I understood from Walter Harrison that the committee was concerned with the security of the building and certainly did not carry a remit to vet research assistants. Many of us would have been astonished if Walter Harrison had been given the job of vetting research assistants. To be fair to Walter Harrison, I am sure that he did nothing of the kind. Are we sure that this is the same committee to which you have referred, Sir?
Mr. Speaker: This committee does not vet anybody. It is an advisory committee to advise the Speaker on security.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raised this matter indirectly with you the other day. It concerns the order of Question Time.
Often a question on the Order Paper is not raised, and those Members who want to ask supplementary questions on a matter do not become aware until the last possible moment that it will not be raised. Would it not be an idea if hon. Members who are not in a position to ask the question in their name on the Order Paper give notice of their intention to your Secretary on that day so that at the beginning of Question Time you can announce to the House which questions will not be called? This will enable hon. Members who want to ask questions on that matter perhaps to find another question on the Order Paper to which they can attach their supplementaries.
Mr. Speaker: That is a good suggestion, but it did not arise today. However, the Chair does not always know in advance whether an hon. Member can be present at Question Time. There have been occasions when, for travel or other reasons, an hon. Member is not able to be present. The whole House accepts that it is of great convenience if an hon. Member who knows that he cannot be present in the Chamber notifies the Chair so that his question is not called.
Mr. Dalyell: Further to the earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker. Who are the chairman and members of the advisory committee on security? Perhaps we ought to know, but we do not.
Mr. Speaker: It is an advisory committee which advises the Speaker. I shall reflect on how much I can say about it.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely, with the greatest of respect, this is very much a House of Commons matter. Although you stated that the committee was apparently set up in 1975, we certainly do not know its terms of reference and whether it is vetting research assistants and the rest. Surely we are entitled to know who is the chairman and on what basis that nomination was made and that appointment was duly agreed to. We should be in a position to go to the Table Office now and seek the information about the members of the committee, how often they meet and whether we can make representations to the committee.
When the matter of the research assistant of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) was raised, I suggested, on a point of order, that there should be some kind of appeal. If the decision that the research assistant, Mr. Bennett, should not be employed here was made on the basis of a recommendation by the committee to which you have just referred, Sir, will there be any right of appeal against the committee's recommendation?
Mr. Speaker: I have already said that this committee does not vet anyone. It is advisory to the Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make representations, I suggest that he does so through his Deputy Chief Whip.
Mr. Benn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. With the greatest respect, I appreciate that putting these points to you without notice creates difficulty, but I had no idea until you replied—and I do not believe that any hon. Member did—that you had a committee. It is your committee that we are asking about: who are its members, who appoints them, and so on? When you say that an hon. Member must make representations to you through our Deputy Chief Whip, you are, with the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, making this not a House of Commons matter but a party matter—which it is not.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to look carefully at the points that I and other hon. Members have made, and to make or put out a statement so that when we debate the matter next week we know the position. No one suggests that these people actually vet; what we suspect is that they endorse the vetting by the security services. That is the point at issue. We want to know who they are, what they do, who appointed them and what reports they have made so that they are accountable to the House, as you are yourself, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I shall reflect on the matter. I think that the whole House would judge it right, proper and wise that there should be due regard for the security of this building and of its members.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 20 NOVEMBER
Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Kevin Barron

Mr. Andrew Mitchell

Mr. John Heddle

Orders of the Day

  Urban Development Corporations (Financial Limits) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.47 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This Bill amends paragraph 8 of schedule 31 to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. Part XVI of that Act contains the provisions under which urban development corporations are established and operate. I know that hon. Members will be familiar with urban development corporations. UDCs are given the task of regenerating their designated areas. Their main functions are to assemble, reclaim and service land to provide infrastructure and to promote development. They can bring a single-minded and co-ordinated approach to the problems of their areas, backed by Exchequer funds.
  The beneficial effects of such an approach are apparent in London docklands and on Merseyside, where the first two UDCs were set up in 1981. The proposal to set up a UDC in London docklands was scrutinised by an all-party Select Committee, which said that its members
  "were forcefully struck by the extent of the calamity in docklands and the vastness of the task facing anybody seeking to regenerate the area."
  The London docklands development corporation took on that vast task, which was an enormous challenge. After only six years, the docks have become a focus for growth. Private sector investment in excess of £2·2 billion has been committed; 12,000 homes have been completed or are under construction; 2·5 million sq ft of non-residential floor space have been completed and 7·5 million sq ft are under construction. The docklands light railway and the London city airport have been built, and 15 miles of new roads provided. More than £10 million have been given to social and community projects. All that, and more, has been achieved on the back of £350 million of Government grant, supplemented by expenditure out of receipts from land sales.
  The Merseyside development corporation faced a different, but equally daunting, task and it has responded with major, imaginative projects, most notably the restoration of the Albert dock warehouses, which has converted the area around it into a hive of activity.
  Over 200 acres of derelict land have been reclaimed for housing and commecial development and a further 200 acres of land and water have been reclaimed for recreation and public open space.
  The five new UDCs set up during this year have only just embarked upon their tasks. But already the response to them has been most encouraging. The areas are already starting to buzz.
  I now refer to the role of this modest Bill in those developments. The background is that schedule 31——
  Mr. Simon Hughes: At some stage, will the Minister give us the up-to-date position on job progress in the present two UDCs? Will he tell us the net gain or loss of jobs over the six-year
  936
  period, as well as progress on housing, with the relative number of houses and distribution between the public and private sectors?
  Mr. Trippier: I shall be happy to deal in detail with those matters in my winding-up speech. The hon. Gentleman may recall that when we previously debated the matter before the House rose for the summer recess, I referred in particular to the importance of training with regard to encouraging local labour to take advantage of the jobs that would be made available. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that the jobs are not only in the construction industry. Jobs are now being provided, and will continue to be provided, in the development that is being undertaken. of course, it is a major initiative that we are taking with the London Docklands development corporation, with the Manpower Services Commission and, in regard to the construction industry, with the construction industry training board. I shall refer to that again in greater detail, as well as housing, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
  I said that I would refer to the role of this modest Bill in those developments. The background is that schedule 31 to the 1980 Act covers the financial arrangements of UDCs. Paragraph 3 of schedule 31 enables my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to pay grants to UDCs. Paragraph 4 provides that UDCs may borrow money either temporarily or longer term. Paragraph 5 enables the Treasury to guarantee the repayment of loans raised from a person or a body other than the Secretary of State. Paragraph 8 of schedule 31 imposes an aggregate financial limit on those grants, borrowing and the guarantees given to them.
  The 1980 Act set that aggregate limit at £200 million, with a provision that it could be raised up to a limit of £400 million, by order. An order was duly approved in 1984, raising the limit to £400 million.
  Section 12 of the New Towns and Urban Development Corporations Act 1985 amended paragraph 8 by inserting two new limits. It set the statutory limit at £600 million, with a similar power to raise it by order to £800 million. An order raising the limit to £800 million came into effect in July. Therefore, any further increase in the limit will require primary legislation.
  When we debated the 1987 order, I told the House that on spending plans for the current financial year the aggregate by the end of the year would get to within £3 million or £4 million of £600 million. Since then my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been able to increase the planned spending of UDCs by £7 million in the current financial year, which he could not have done without that order.
  I am pleased to say that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced yesterday that the resources available to UDCs next year will be increased substantially. Overall, the spending counting against the limit in paragraph 8 should be rather more than £200 million, in 1988–89, taking aggregate spending through the £800 million limit before the end of that year. Although the limit would not actually be breached until towards the end of the next financial year, the Supply Estimates covering that spending will be laid before the House in the spring. The House could not be asked to vote that Supply, if it exceeded statutory limits. Therefore, it is necessary to amend paragraph 8.

  937
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State might simply have set a higher overall limit, but he has decided instead to revise the way in which the limit is set. It is cumbersome and time-consuming if regular recourse to legislation is required for what are essentially technical adjustments.The limit currently operates primarily on all grants and long-term loans received since the UDCs were established. We are talking about a collection of bodies in different places and with different needs. No two are the same. Their aggregate expenditure since 1980 is of less interest and relevance than what they have spent, and what they intend to spend, individually.
  UDCs are already subject to two separate and significant spending controls. The first is the general public expenditure system, by which an overall external financing limit is set annually. That covers both grants and borrowing. The second is the annual supply process by which the grant-in-aid paid to each UDC is annually voted by Parliament. Supply estimates are provided in some detail. This provides for regular scrutiny of expenditure, and provides Parliament with the opportunity to examine the operation of UDCs through the Select Committee system.
  These two systems of control seem adequate and more relevant than that provided by paragraph 8.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: What is the difference between urban development corporations and local authorities? Local authorities receive grant from central funds, and every year Parliament has to decide whether to approve the grant to the various authorities of different types. Local authorities have the same public expenditure accountability as UDCs, yet the Government propose to take away any regular parliamentary approval and scrutiny of grants to UDCs while at the same time retaining it absolutely for local authorities. Why is there this preference for quangos over local government?
  Mr. Trippier: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right. Every year Parliament has to agree the Supply Estimates which cover expenditure via the Department of the Environment on, for example, rate support grant and housing investment programmes. The so-called urban block held by the Department of the Environment covers UDCs, urban development grants and so on, all of which are annually voted. The significant difference is that the Bill governs the problem that we may have with loans, and I shall turn to that in a moment.
  As I said, UDCs are already subject to separate and significant spending controls. The two systems to which I referred seem adequate and more relevent than that provided by paragraph 8.
  The next question is: what is the most relevant measure of borrowing? At present, paragraph 8 includes all borrowing which is not temporary, ignoring any repayments. This does not seem the most appropriate measure. A more relevant measure is the outstanding principal on any loans. It is consistent also to count any sums paid to honour guarantees provided by the Treasury. In effect, that would be borrowing which could not be repaid. Therefore, the limit in the Bill is confined to outstanding borrowing and Treasury guarantees paid.
  Having established a sensible definition of what should count against the financial limit, the next issue is the level at which that limit should be set. When the 1980 Act was
  938
  passed, it was anticipated that borrowing could be a significant source of finance. In the event, UDCs have borrowed very little. This is because it would be prudent for a UDC to borrow only if it could anticipate an adequate return. If there is likely to be such a return, then, in general, UDCs have found that the private sector will undertake the spending.
  There are, however, certain cases in which a UDC will want to borrow. First, it has powers to lend to others and will need to borrow to finance that lending. Secondly, it may want to undertake, or contribute to, an investment with an adequate return which does not appeal to the private sector. Thirdly, it may want to invest in a project where it is more appropriate for the public sector to take the lead.
  The Bill sets a statutory limit of £30 million. That is modest, but it provides some room for manoeuvre. With the seven UDCs we have at present, it implies average borrowing of about £4 million. That is more than the first two UDCs have undertaken—so far they have each borrowed about £1 million—but it is small alongside intended programmes.
  We want to provide some leeway —for example, in case significant projects are identified which would best be financed from borrowing. Therefore, the Bill provides for the level of borrowing to be raised to as much as £100 million without further primary legislation. Any increase above £30 million would still require the approval of this House.
  This is a sensible measure. It retains a proper degree of parliamentary control over UDCs without requiring regular recourse to primary legislation. I hope that it will have the support of all parties. We had a debate less than four months ago on the order raising the limit to £800 million. In that debate the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) told us:
  "the Opposition usually does not vote against increases in money that might bring some benefit to areas."—[Official Report, 15 July 1987; Vol. 119, c. 1232.]
  The hon. Member then went on to suggest that the increase in that order — from £600 million to £800 million—was inadequate because there were now seven UDCs. I am certain that the Opposition will welcome the removal of the limit. In fact, the hon. Gentleman was labouring under a misapprehension because, as I hope is clear from my lengthy explanation of this Bill, paragraph 8 of the 1980 Act is not a power to spend money. It simply imposes an overall limit. Under the 1980 Act, that limit can only be raised in stages. Because the Bill proposes that no statutory limit should be placed on total grant-in-aid paid to UDCs, it frees Parliament to vote to each UDC, each year, the resources that it feels are appropriate.
  I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement yesterday helps to answer the hon. Member for Bootle's criticism, by making considerably more funds available for this important task of urban regeneration. An amendment to paragraph 8 of the schedule 31 is necessary if UDCs are to continue that important task. The Bill introduces a sensible streamlining of that paragraph, retaining for Parliament the right to vote on significant expansions in borrowing by UDCs but removing from the existing total statutory limit the grant-in-aid that has been voted to all UDCs over the years.
  I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.2 pm
  Mr. Roland Boyes: The first two urban development corporations were created by the former Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), in September 1979. He said that he envisaged that urban development corporations would be modelled on the well-established and, in many ways, successful new towns.
  I have said before in this Chamber that the new towns are a social achievement of which the Labour party can be justifiably proud. They were created after the war by the newly elected Labour Administration—in particular by the then Minister, Mr. Lewis Silkin. That gives me an opportunity to place on record how much I miss Mr. John Silkin who, tragically, died earlier this year. On matters relating to new towns, as well as to political matters in general, he was most helpful to me, particularly when I first became a Member of the House. He will be missed in debates such as this by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  The urban development corporations were given enormous powers — planning, Iand assembly and disposal for private sector development, industrial and commercial development and promotion, environmental improvement, housing and the provision of infrastructure— authorities--—Labour local to enable them to achieve the regeneration of two areas: the London docklands and the Merseyside dock area.
  Five additional urban development corporations have been set up since then. In general, the new UDCs have hardly begun their work. The recruitment of staff is just about completed, and those connected with the UDCs are already excited about the possibilities. However, it will be impossible for some years to judge how successful or otherwise they will be.
  To enable the UDCs to satisfy the objectives that I have just quoted, the original UDCs have to complete the regeneration of the defined areas by attracting a great deal of cash from private investment. That applies also to the five new UDCs. In a press notice, the Secretary of State declared that each UDC could spend between £100 million and £150 million over a period of six to seven years. The notice continued:
  "The bulk of expenditure will go on the reclamation of derelict or disused land, and to the provision of access roads and the infrastructure, to pave the way for subsequent development by the private sector for industry or housing."
  I shall deal with that aspect in relation to the London Docklands development corporation and the Merseyside docklands corporation a little later, because the comparative success of the two corporations is of much interest.
  Through a series of orders and legislation, the aggregate sum of cash available to UDCs—mainly for grants and long-term borrowing—was raised from £100 million to £800 million during the last few years. According to changes in a number of economic variables, it will be necessary from time to time to modify the latter figure. I understand that the purpose of the Bill is to allow for revisions to the statutory ceiling by exempting grants from the financial limits that are contained in the regulations.
  I shall say no more about the technical financial aspects, because the Minister has, fortunately, put them on record and it is unnecessary for me to repeat them. However, will the Minister say whether the revision of the statutory ceiling will always be upwards?
  940
  Another factor that will undoubtedly affect the financial limits will be the creation by the Secretary of State of a series of mini UDCs. They were mentioned in the Conservative party's manifesto for the June 1987 election. The Tory party believes that local authorities— Labour local authorities in particular—are an obstacle to inner-city regeneration. I do not intend to go into the merits or otherwise of the mini UDCs, but we cannot consider the financial limits for all UDCs without considering the possibility of the introduction of new UDCs.
  The Secretary of State made a speech on 3 June 1987 that, from our point of view, was highly contentious. It demonstrated clearly the Government's negative attitude to local government and, in particular, to democratically elected Labour authorities. Their contempt for local authorities is expressed both in speeches and in legislation by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and others that leads to controversy about the nature, role and judgment of the success or failure of the UDCs. It is a subject for another debate, but it is worth stating that this Government's continuing attack on local government is weakening the democratic process. It is not just local government that is at risk; democracy itself is at risk.
  As an illustration, the Minister for Local Government, the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who unfortunately is not on the Treasury Bench at the moment, is reported in an editorial in The Guardian on 30 October 1987 as saying:
  "In some high spending areas the local council has virtually no opposition councillors. It may take many years in those areas for the pressures of the ballot box to take effect. In these circumstances we have a duty to ensure that local people are protected from wild extravagance."
  That says a great deal about the Government's attitude to the electorate. If the political party that controls a local authority is other than the Tory party, the people who elected their local representatives have to be protected against those whom they themselves chose through the ballot box. That is absurd; it is nonsense. What does the Minister mean by
  "the pressures of the ballot box to take effect"?
  Surely the pressures of the ballot box decide who is to lead a local authority.
  There are many people in the north and in Scotland, south Wales and other parts of the country who would like to be protected from the wild extravagance of this Government. The Opposition do not like it, but we accept the democratically determined wishes of the people of this land. Why cannot this Government do the same with regard to local government by keeping their ever-meddling fingers out of local government matters? Why will not the Government accept that local people know what they want and that they are able to express it through the ballot box?
  I see that the Secretary of State for the Environment is in his place. This afternoon many accusations have been made against Labour-controlled local authorities. [Interruption.] I do not know whether the Secretary of State wishes to intervene. If he does, I shall give way to him. In an article today in The Guardian, David Hencke clearly demonstrates the inefficiency in the Secretary of State's Department. He says:
  "Sir Gordon Downey, the Comptroller and Auditor General, has refused to approve the Department of the Environment's annual accounts for the second year running"

  941
  because it does not know where £210 million-worth of urban development grant has gone. It is incredible that £210 million can be lost. What would the Secretary of State say to a Labour-controlled local authority in a similar position? We would probably be hearing demands from Tory Members for gaol sentences or for the police to be sent in.
  The other matter that I cannot understand—I accept that it is not the Secretary of State's responsibility, but we are talking about the regeneration of inner cities — concerns the article written by David Hencke. Commenting on figures released yesterday by the Department of Employment, he said:
  "More than half the £7 million for inner cities was not spent."
  With regard to the high levels of unemployment and deprivation in inner cities, it is incredible that the Government have cash to spend on them yet half the £7 million that was allocated was never touched. I hope that the Minister will comment on that point later. The Secretary of State seems reluctant to come to the Dispatch Box and explain it to us.
  UDCs and mini UDCs are further examples of the Government's continuing assault on local government. On mini UDCs, the Conservative manifesto said:
  "These will operate on a smaller scale in areas where there is clear economic potential, but where local authorities are failing to tackle the problem."
  It is true that local authorities do not always tackle these obvious problems. This is not a matter of understanding or of will, but a direct result of the Government's decision to cut the amount of cash that local authorities have available to carry out the many projects that they wish to complete and to provide the services needed by the community.
  More than £21 billion has been cut from the rate support grant since 1979. As a percentage of local authority budgets, the RSG has fallen from 61 per cent. to 46 per cent.
  The fact that there are problems that cannot be tackled through cash shortage forces Opposition Members to welcome the additional cash that is being channelled through the UDCs into our inner-city areas. To a degree, it demonstrates that the Government recognise that all is not well in many of our inner-city areas, although their response is pretty feeble. Many Opposition Members believe that this increased cash has more to do with changing voting behaviour than with economic regeneration. The available cash is not being dispersed through local authorities or partnerships between local authorities and UDCs, thus leading to strong feelings about the nature of UDCs. I suspect that many different opinions will be voiced by hon. Members about the nature and usefulness of UDCs.
  UDCs arouse strong passions because they are unelected bodies and can bypass and ignore the long and short-term strategic decisions of local authorities.
  While cash is welcome, it must be put into the context of RSG cuts and the rate-capping penalties that have been introduced in recent years. In the near future the Government will attempt to introduce a poll tax, which, according to public opinion polls, is rejected by a large majority of British people, especially by those in Scotland, where it was tested in the general election. If the Government enact that legislation, it will be because of
  942
  Rambo Tory Whips uttering threats of muscle to force some unwilling Tory Members through the Lobbies. Many Tory Members are well aware that many of their constituents are against the poll tax.
  Even if £1 billion of Government cash is made available to the UDCs, it is small change compared with what has been taken away from local authorities. It is not new cash; it is simply returning a small amount of what local authorities should have had in the past to carry out economic regeneration projects.
  Two of the UDCs will be in the north-east. One will be responsible for developing land on the Wear and Tyne riversides. However, in Sunderland one quango is being replaced by another. Was it not the Government's avowed aim to rid the United Kingdom of quangos? Washington development corporation is being wound up in March 1988. It has a good record of job promotion, and it, the local authority, myself and others made representations to the Secretary of State to keep it in existence for the foreseeable future. However, it is not to be. Completed building and other development work must be sold off to add further to the coffers of the Treasury.
  The Washington development corporation is located in the borough of Sunderland. The loss of the WDC and its replacement by an urban development corporation can be likened to taking cash out of one pocket and putting it into another. New cash is, therefore, hardly flowing into the borough of Sunderland. As the Minister is aware, my constituency is one of the three that are conterminous with the borough of Sunderland. This robbing-Peter-to-pay-Paul mentality is unacceptable.
  UDCs are undemocratic bodies because the people who serve on them are appointed by the Secretary of State. Anyone who has caused him or his Department problems in the past will stand little chance of being appointed. Anyone who is appointed but does not conform in the future has little chance of staying on the board. Leading councillors from the areas concerned have been brought on to the boards, thus providing a conduit from the board to the local authority. However, the local authority representatives cannot vote down a proposition even if they know that it conflicts directly with council strategies and objectives. By definition, no one is elected to the UDC board, nor are local authorities able to elect who they want on or who they want taken off the board.
  That limited representation has merit only when the UDC is created in an area where a single council is responsible for the area to be developed by the UDC. It is not always the case that a single authority is involved, and where more than one is it can lead to some local authorities having privileged access to information and decision-making processes. This is particularly important, because the UDC is given powers of planning and economic development—taken from local authorities— that can lead to conflict with the policy of the local authority. The UDCs should operate within the strategic goals of the local authority. That does not imply or mean that a local authority will have a veto over what the UDC can do, but it limits its activities to those that fit in with the objectives of the local authority.
  I can envisage tremendous problems in the creation of the new mini UDCs. In his speech on 3 June 1987, the Secretary of State defined mini UDCs as bodies applying the UDC model to areas of land in larger cities and towns where progress has been slow because of the activities of a given local authority. Those mini UDCs will have a

  943
  budget of between £10 million and £15 million, which will be used to attract private capital. In his speech the Secretary of State said:
  "We have not yet decided the selection of areas and further studies will have to be made."
  If the Secretary of State has selected those areas, perhaps he will now say so.
  The Secretary of State then said something that greatly concerns Opposition Members and, I am sure, many Conservative Members as well:
  "We hope local people will bring to our attention areas of dereliction which they think can benefit from this approach."
  What does the Secretary of State mean by "local people"? There was no mention of local authorities in this part of his speech, and if he intends to bypass local authorities it will lead to nothing less than tremendous tension.
  It is not clear from the Secretary of State's speech whether he will create more than one mini UDC in a given council area. The financing of UDCs reveals some astonishing anomalies.
  In an article in the Municipal Journal of 6 February 1987 Mr. Cliff Davis-Colman quotes from an interview with Liverpool's chief executive, Michael Reddington, who said:
  "'The money that the Development Corporation has is for capital works. If we were to get their money, it would near enough double our spending allocation. They get £30m a year to administer 27 acres, whereas we get £37m—if you take away partnership monies—for housing, social services and everything else for the remaining 236,973 acres'."
  We agree with the election-night statement by the Prime Minister that something must be done about inner cities. The Labour party is also aware of the problem, but would tackle it in a different way and would not create a proliferation of undemocratic unaccountable, urban development corporations.
  It is recognised even by senior people on the LDDC board that the root of the board's problem is that it does not have the relationship with local people that local authorities have. However, it is important to examine in the LDDC the achievements as well as the weaknesses. It is essential that the achievements are neither glossed over nor given inadequate recognition. It is also important to have in the back of one's mind the fact that it is in the interests of the Government and their supporters to exaggerate the position so that their policy of UDC proliferation in Labour areas can be justified.
  Employment is important, and the large pool of men and women on the dole is a most important indicator. It appears that job creation results have been mixed. The Department of Employment claims that about 8,000 jobs have been created. This was through a mix of new jobs and a large number, perhaps as many as 5,000, through factory relocation. If a balance sheet were drawn up to show new job creation and job losses in the same period, it would just about balance.
  Part of the problem is the ever-increasing land values. That has led to some companies leaving the docklands because it is in their interests to take the cash from property speculators. In addition, the economic policies of the Government have led to job losses. Perhaps the factor that most annoys people in the docklands is the price of housing. It was expected that there would be a housing mix — houses for sale and houses for rent. It was also expected that some of the houses would be priced at a level that would make them accessible to the vast majority of people living in the area.
  Mr. Trippier: May I take the hon. Gentleman back to the issue of employment? The Labour Government were in power for more than two thirds of the time between 1964 and 1979 and the decline in employment on the east side of London, particularly in the docklands area, proceeded apace. What on earth did the Labour Government do at that time to arrest that decline? That is the question that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends must address.
  Mr. Boyes: If one compares the level of unemployment during that period with the present level of unemployment, one sees that, despite the Government's horrific advertising campaign for the 1979 election, unemployment now, tragically, is three to four time greater than it was under the Labour Government.
  At present the vast majority of houses and flats—at least 75 to 80 per cent.—being built are for sale, but the biggest problem is price. Anyone reading the houses for sale advertisements in the press will immediately see that the price of houses and flats is beyond the reach of all but a minority. One-bedroom flats cost over £50,000 and in some cases the price is as high as £150,000 and rising. This naturally causes resentment among local people.
  Although it is vital to get the mix right in terms of tenure, price and location, it is important to recognise that the mix will include some expensive houses. We accept that that is necessary. However, we know that many people are waiting for affordable housing, and housing that people who live in the docklands area can buy ought to be built. If our inner cities are to be regenerated, we must attract the wealth producers. We must attract people, many of them very young, who work in computing, in the media and in the production of videos.
  Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: At long last.
  Mr. Boyes: I and my colleagues have said that many times. I do not mind starting the sentence again as it seems to say something on which we are in agreement. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish the paragraph, he may find that there are other things on which we agree.
  As I say, we must attract to the inner cities the people who work in computing, in the media, in the production of videos and in other newly flourishing industries. We must attract people who are making huge salaries, and to do that we need to provide the type of housing that such people demand. We have had to learn this lesson in the north, but we did not need a UDC to bring it to our attention. We had to learn that, if we wanted to attract industry, housing had to be available for the executives and the skilled workers. That is part of the process of creating stable jobs and wealth, both of which are essential in the inner-city areas.
  We must also recognise the contribution made by the architects, builders and designers who have transformed old buildings and have been responsible for imaginative and sometimes spectacular productions. There are many examples of such exciting and interesting architecture. I may now be wandering along a path of controversy — although this is a non-political area.
  By definition, the LDDC has had to work with those providing finance. This is an essential task for the newly created UDCs. The public and private sectors must work closely together in the interests of our communities. However, if the mechanism for this has to be a UDC, it

  945
  is essential that all involved are sensitive to the aims, needs and aspirations of local people. If that objective is ignored, the problems created will be at least as great as those to be solved. The economic problems cannot be solved independently of the social and other related problems.
  The Government are critical of Labour-controlled authorities for not working closely with the private sector. The LDDC has had much success in this field. There are lessons to be learned, but the very location of the docklands has made this an easier task than it is for other areas. For example, Labour-controlled authorities in the north-east find it very difficult to attract private capital for development and new industry.
  The new urban development corporations will not have an easy ride. Martin Laing, who I suspect may be a friend of the Government and who is chairman of John Laing plc and chairman of the national contractors' group of the Building Employers Confederation, said in a letter to The Times on 6 October:
  "The success of London Docklands, which is a uniquely favoured area next to one of the world's major financial centres, should not lead the Government into believing or expecting that £1 of public expenditure will produce the same £4 to £6 of private investment in less favoured areas—certainly not in the early stages, and probably never in some of the more deprived areas in the North."
  Mr. Trippier: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that matter, it is essential for me to remind the House that even in areas of the north—perhaps not in the north-east but in the north-west and especially in Salford with the conversion of the Salford quays and the dramatic transformation of the infrastructure and the development there—the leverage is as high as 1:6. That is higher than the average for the whole of the urban bloc. I am not making a political point, but that leverage shows what can be done in a very difficult area in the north-west.
  Mr. Boyes: Clearly the tenor of my speech is that we must attract private capital to the north and that we want a partnership with private capital because that is the way to regenerate our inner cities. I welcome the fact that other areas have been successful in attracting private capital.
  Speaking as an elected representative from the northeast and as someone who has been a councillor and a local government officer, I am well aware of the difficulties that we experience in the north. Indeed, I have before me the letter from Martin Laing, the chairman of John Laing plc, who wrote to The Times forcefully expressing his opinion that we should not expect the ratios in the north to be the same as those that have been obtained, for example, in the London area. I believe that the Minister should look carefully and favourably on the north when he is allocating grants because of our difficulties——
  Miss Marjorie Mowlam: I am sure that my hon. Friend acknowledges that we want to bring industry to the north-east. It must be made clear to the Government Benches that not one Labour local authority in the northeast—if there is one, I ask the Minister to name it—has turned down an industry that has wanted to come to the north-east. Many industries have done so and we will welcome many more. Indeed, we have gone out of our way to welcome them. It would be wrong to assume that Labour local authorities in the north-east have not and are not working flat out to get industries to the region.
  Mr. Boyes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that important point in support of the argument. I hope that she is fortunate this evening to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, so that she can develop the argument that she has just summarised.
  With respect to the LDDC, I do not believe that it is right either to praise or to bury it. It is necessary to work with it. Incidentally, that appears to be the positive attitude taken by local authorities in other areas. Councils would have preferred the cash to be made available to them, but, because that has not happened, they will take whatever advantage they can of the present situation to improve their locality. We shall see some interesting developments with the creation of jobs in industry, commerce and tourism. Where the UDC and the local authority work closely together the results will be even better. However, Ministers will crawl in through the back door claiming, "We did it." But the Government will not fool the canny folk of the north-east, any more than the people of other areas.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm what he has just implied? Will he confirm that the Labour party's strong advice to its colleagues who run my borough council, Southwark, is to work at office and member level on a full-time basis with the LDDC? Over the past six years it has not done so and has lost golden opportunities. Will the Opposition Front Bench tell that council to get on with the job even if, in common with me, they would not have created the LDDC in the first place?
  Mr. Boyes: I strongly object to Government interference with democratically elected local authorities and I certainly will not send any message of the type suggested by the hon. Member. There is not one rule for the Government and one rule for us to break. When we are next in government, I hope that we will allow local authorities to get on with the job and carry out whatever policies they think are appropriate to their areas. That is the tenor of my speech.
  I wish to raise one or two specific questions with the Minister. It appears that the Government determine that the key indicators of the success or otherwise of a UDC is the ratio of private capital attraction to public investment. According to the LDDC, the leverage ratio is 8:1. It claims that committed private sector investment exceeds £2 billion. However, according to Hazel Duffy, writing in the Financial Times on 13 May, the experts say that, taking all public costs into account, the ratio is nearer 4:1. Judged by any consideration, that is still a good result. However, Hazel Duffy quoted Mr. Wyndham Thomas, a LDDC board member, who said:
  "Given the substantial powers, the tidal flow of public money and above all the location, we could not possibly have failed".
  I do not believe that one would get such a quote from a board member of any of the northern UDCs.
  The Merseyside development corporation is the only one with which we can make a comparison of UDC achievements. Here the situation is different. The latest figures that I have show that £140 million of Government money has pulled in less than £20 million of private capital—a ratio of 1:7. That is a mirror image of the results claimed by the LDDC. What are the Minister's expectations for his more recent creations? Will he increase public sector investment if, in any of the new UDC areas, the leverage ratios are similar to that achieved on

  947
  Merseyside? Will he take the opposite course and see such a ratio as a sign of failure and cut off access to Government cash? Has the Minister defined leverage rates that must be achieved?
  Earlier I mentioned new towns. My understanding of the funding arrangements—prior to the announcement of the closure date when things get sticky—was that new towns were funded by long-term loans whereas UDCs are funded quite differently—annually, as part of public expenditure. That makes them more dependent on Whitehall. In a press notice on 14 September 1979, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said:
  "The UDCs can be modelled on the New Town Development Corporations".
  He then gave a list of functions to be carried out by the UDCs and said:
  "They will need to be provided with resources adequate for their task".
  Why does not the Minister introduce legislation, if required, to fund UDCs in the same way as new towns? If he will not do so, will he explain the nature of the problem preventing him from doing so?
  In view of the fact that the Minister is seeking approval this evening to raise aggregate limits without parliamentary approval, I should be glad if he would inform the House how much cash each UDC will have access to in the next five years and, particularly, how much is available for each UDC this year. In addition, will he inform the House what criteria are used to determine the amount of cash to which a UDC has access in its first operational year? My understanding of the way UDCs must operate is that, each autumn, they submit to the Department of the Environment a corporate plan — a three-year rolling programme. When a project is proposed, the Secretary of State determines, before freeing the cash, whether the project is good value. How does he determine that? What is his definition of good value?
  There may be further questions that I wish to raise towards the end of the debate if I am able to catch your eye again, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) will be able to raise those questions on my behalf if he has the opportunity to speak.
  In conclusion, I wish to make the Labour party's position on UDCs clear. We shall work with them until the next general election, although recognising the nature of them and the real reason for their creation. That strategy is no reflection on the people, the officials and board members of the UDCs, because the chairmen that I have met are setting about their tasks with enthusiasm and a desire to get things rolling.
  After the next general election, the Labour Government will make a review of all development corporations. We shall decide our policy towards them according to predetermined criteria. In the meantime, we aim to give maximum support to those already set up and support their efforts to improve the environment, attract industry and create jobs.
  Our inner cities have tremendous problems and only Labour in Parliament and Labour-controlled local authorities have the policies and the will to succeed in regenerating our inner cities and bringing them back to the standards desired by the people who live in those areas.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I must remind the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) that he will need the unanimous leave of the House to speak again in this debate.
  4.39 pm
  Mr. Churchill: I warmly welcome the Bill and, above all, the increased funding provision for urban development corporations. I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State on the able way in which he introduced the Bill. I appreciate the close interest that he takes in the Trafford Park development corporation. He knows the back streets of Trafford Park, not only by day but by night, from his former training as a Royal Marines reserve officer.
  It is noteworthy and sad that fewer than half a dozen Labour Members, including the Front Bench, are in their places on this occasion. For a party that claims to be concerned about our industrial areas, that is a disgrace. It was equally disappointing to listen to the attitude of the Labour party to this whole question as enunciated by their Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes). He adopted a lukewarm attitude when he said that all the UDCs would be under threat should a Labour Government ever return to power. He said that they would pick up the roots to see whether they were worth keeping or whether they should be got rid of. That does not lend to stability and confidence for the future. Fortunately, there seems to be very little prospect that that will materialise given that, if the Labour party persists in its present course, it will have no chance whatever of coming to power.
  Mr. Boyes rose——
  Mr. Churchill: I shall give way shortly.
  The hon. Gentleman seemed to perpetuate the attitude of "us" and "them" as between the rights of local authorities, as the Labour party conceives them, and the UDCs, which, above all, exist to cut a swathe through the red tape and bureaucracy that exists in many local authority areas. That seems to be the only way of getting on with the job and attracting business and industry to an area. The hon. Gentleman should come to Trafford Park and see the sort of co-operation that exists across party boundaries between the Labour local authority in Salford and the Labour-dominated local authority in Trafford which are warmly enthusiastic and determined to see the Trafford Park-Salford development corporation succeed. But, clearly, the Labour party in this House seems to be adopting a lukewarm attitude.
  Mr. Boyes: I shall be extremely pleased to visit the Trafford Park UDC and to talk to management, people and councillors in the area. The hon. Gentleman seems to be basing his whole argument on the fact that the Labour party will review the UDCs. But surely that is what his own Government have been doing over the last eight years with regard to new town development corporations. Indeed, since I have come into the House, they have been under review twice. Once we managed to get a stay of execution, and now the Washington new town development corporation is being wound up altogether. Surely it is natural and normal for any Government to review its quangos from time to time.
  Mr. Churchill: I am very glad that some new town policies have been looked at once again. In the area that

  949
  I represent—a large industrial chunk of the west side of Manchester—the new town policy pursued over many years by successive Governments has been an unmitigated disaster. It has drained into greenfield sites desperately needed resources that are required for the regeneration of industry in the traditional industrial areas as well as housing resources needed to maintain the quality and standard of the housing stock in the traditional urban areas. That has been an extremely damaging policy and in my view is in no way comparable with the UDC strategy which is already bearing significant fruit in those areas where it has been established.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: At the time when the UDC in Trafford Park was created, how many people lived within that area? In terms of planning strategy, there may be a substantial difference between areas in which no one is living and areas in which a lot of people live. I do not know the answer, and it would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman could tell us.
  Mr. Churchill: Virtually no people are currently resident in Trafford Park. There used to be a considerable community, but the houses were bulldozed during the last decade and the population moved.
  The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington used figures in relation to the London Docklands development corporation and said that the very special circumstances of London docklands resulted in a gearing ratio of 4:1 or 5:1 of private capital compared with Government investment. The view of the chairman of the Trafford Park development corporation and his board members is that Trafford Park will achieve an even higher ratio, even though it does not have the advantage of a large financial services area, as is the case with London docklands. Indeed, we are aiming at a 7:1 gearing ratio, which would effectively mean that the £160 million committed by Government will make this a £1 billion project. That is tremendous and I welcome it enormously.
  I thank the Government for their imaginative initiative. They are the first Government in the post-war era to tackle the regeneration of British industry in its traditional heartlands. I especially thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the attention and understanding with which he considered the representations made to him by the major manuacturers in Trafford Park over a two-year period, backed up by the Trafford district council and my own representations. At the end of the day, he decided on Trafford Park as the site for one of the UDCs. We greatly appreciate the close personal interest that he continues to take in the launching and success of this venture.
  The Trafford Park UDC is the key to the future prosperity of Trafford Park, which remains the major centre of industrial manufacturing in western Europe. It has been many years since Trafford Park employed 80,000 people, as it did at the height of war-time production. That figure came down drastically, with the arrival of peace after the war, to around the 50,000 mark. But even today there are 650 firms in Trafford Park of every size, including some of the largest in the country. The added stimulus that will be provided by the UDC will enable this area to be regenerated on a scale never before contemplated. It will enable us to look towards the 21st century with every confidence.
  950
  This positive attitude by the Conservative Government is in stark contrast to the attitude of successive Labour Governments when, in spite of pleadings by the local authority, local industries and myself as the Member of Parliament, we got no sympathy whatever. Indeed, the reverse was the case. There was positive discrimination against Trafford Park as one of the established industrial areas.
  I cite but one example. When Kelloggs—which makes and distributes the country's cereals in Trafford Park—applied in the mid-1970s for industrial planning permission, the then Labour Government denied the company an industrial development certificate, and said: "This is already an industrial area. You have to go somewhere else." When the management of Kelloggs asked, "Where do you want us to go?", the reply was, "We think that Huyton would be a rather good place." I wonder whose constituency that was.
  Although thousands of jobs were lost under the Labour Government during the late 1960s, there was absolutely no move to bring about the regeneration of industry in that traditional area. Indeed, all efforts to bring back industry were geared towards new towns. Big inducements were given to manufacturers to go to green field sites while traditional industrial areas were allowed to decline and decay. Over the past 17 years, I have seen the constant erosion of employment in that area. The clear prospect that is offered by the development corporation means that we shall be able to bring back about 16,000 new jobs. That will return employment levels in Trafford Park to around the 40,000 mark, where they were more than 20 years ago. On behalf of my constituents, I cannot welcome that move too strongly.
  Of the new generation of urban development corporations, the one in Trafford Park has been the first to get off the ground. Our chairman, Mr. Peter Hadfield, was appointed within 24 hours of the development corporation being established by the House in February of this year. Plans are already well advanced, land acquisition is moving ahead rapidly, and the corporation is about to move into the development phase. That is exciting.
  One of the factors for the early success of the development corporation has been the tremendous support that it has received across political boundaries from Trafford and Salford local authorities. I pay tribute to their constructive and supportive attitude.
  The Trafford Park development corporation is up and running. We appreciate the excellent support that it is getting from the Department of the Environment, at both Civil Service and Government level. Inevitably, one of the key elements in the success of such a venture rests in the ability of the development corporation to acquire a lot of land at an early stage before prices escalate as a result of development corporation-generated improvements. Any delay in the flow of funds to support the early acquisition of land would undoubtedly, in the longer term, involve false economy. I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to the very fact that, although the Trafford Park development corporation applied for about £12·5 million funding in the current year, thus far it has been accorded only £9·5 million. We can put the extra £3 million that we requested to excellent use, should my hon. Friend be able to furnish us with it.
  Although, in the first few months, we are inevitably only in the planning phase, we receive many inquiries from

  951
  firms which are eager to move into the area. We intend to make a success of Trafford Park and to rebuild employment levels to those which obtained 20 or more years ago. There will be jobs not in warehousing but in industrial manufacturing and high tech. I hope that the concept of development corporations will be used more widely to regenerate the industrial heartland of the United Kingdom.
  4.53 pm
  Mr. Peter Shore: I welcome, as I am sure other hon. Members do, the opportunity to discuss the Government's strategy on inner cities, particularly with reference to the proposal to extend the role and financing of urban development corporations.
  In regard to the Minister's proposed changes in financial provisions for UDCs, I wonder whether we shall have as many occasions in the next few years—we have not had many in the past six years—specifically to discuss urban development corporation policy. I also wonder whether the refurbishment of loan funds, when it tops the £30 million mark, may not occur at some considerable time in the future. That would rob us of the specific opportunity—I know that we shall compete with others in discussing Estimates—to discuss urban development policy.
  One of the principal reasons why people, particularly those in built-up areas in which UDCs have been imposed, feel strongly is that they have no opportunity to hold appointed board members to account. That places an additional obligation upon the hon. Members who represent such areas to raise their constituents' problems in relation to urban policy and the urban development corporation institution whenever they can.
  It would be silly to proceed without understanding each other's approach to UDCs. They are not necessarily controversial when they are imposed on areas of simple industrial dereliction. As the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) said, the Trafford Park area is not residential; it is simply derelict and definitely needs to be cleared up.
  The considerations that apply to such areas do not apply to areas with settled populations, as is the case with the London dockland development area. I do not know whether they apply to other areas which have recently been designated, such as Teesside, Tyne and Wear, the black country, the west midlands, and the Cardiff port. It seems that, where there are substantial residential populations, a rather different approach is needed. We do not necessarily have to rule out the possibility of a development corporation, but the approach and the efforts that are made to obtain the consent of the local authority in the relevant area are bound to be crucial.
  I remind the House of the way in which we proceeded in the past, not with the green field site new town corporations after 1945, because they were green field sites —there was no real problem about people in the areas —but in the third generation of new towns. We were dealing with massive developments such as Warrington, where we established a new town in the north-west, and the expansion of Northampton and Peterborough. The new town corporation was set up only at the end of a substantial period of negotiation with the relevant local authority, which won its consent and led to a genuine partnership between the existing local authority and the
  952
  new corporation that was set up to undertake the additional development work, which it could do better than the local authority could. That was consent.
  How much consent has the Minister received so far in regard to his proposals to local authorities in Tyne and Wear, Teesside, the black country, the west midlands generally, and so on? It makes a great difference, for the obvious reason that, if there is a population and a local authority is alienated, it is extremely difficult to get the necessary interlock between a local authority's planning functions and the development corporation which is adjacent to it or in the middle of it. They must work together if there is to be success.
  It is a great pity that so much of the Government's approach begins with a feeling of hostility and antagonism towards local authorities. Of course there will be some friction and clashing, but we must have more faith in our fellow countrymen and in local government institutions. We must believe that they are capable, particularly with a good deal of ministerial effort and persuasion, of being brought into the general wish to redevelop their areas in their own interests. It is not terribly difficult to persuade people to do that.
  My basic approach to UDCs is that they should go ahead only with the consent of the local authorities If there is no real co-operation from them, it will he very difficult to achieve any success. The Government should consider that problem in the light of our experience in the largest of all urban development corporations, the London Docklands development corporation.
  A great deal of development has taken place in docklands. Anyone who saw the area in 1979 and looks at it again today could not fail to recognise that there has been an enormous amount of activity. I consider that much of that activity would have happened with or without the LDDC. [HON. MEMBERS:"Oh.!"] I have strong reasons for believing that; there was an enormous amount happening after 1977 with the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978, the 100 per cent. derelict land grant, and the inner-city partnerships which we established in Manchester, Salford and the dockland areas in Newcastle, Gateshead and other areas. We provided special and separate budgets for those areas and for the development of the statutory docklands joint development committee. I know better than most people that there was an enormous amount going on. I am not denying that progress has been substantial in the past eight years. However, the issue is not simply about development, but about development for whom and for what purpose.
  Mr. Ron Leighton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the difficulties of the joint development committee was that it was not able to get access to land? The land was owned by the public utilities, the Port of London Authority and the gas board and was not made available. Nor was the committee able to get Government money. The LDDC had compulsory purchase powers. It had the land and was given the money.
  Mr. Shore: There is something in that, but the joint development committee was given a considerable budget. The London dock was bought by Tower Hamlets council in 1977 for about £3 million—for 100 acres. It was going ahead. It had the land and the resources.
  The greatest problem for people living in the LDDC area is that they do not feel that these developments have

  953
  any direct benefits for them. That can be broken down into many headings, but I choose two. One is jobs. Most of the jobs have been imported—people have come with their jobs when firms have moved there. The greater part of Fleet street moved to docklands; people came with their jobs. One would hope that when replacement jobs arise there will be greater opportunities for the people who live in the area.
  The great movement of jobs, particularly to the Isle of Dogs enterprise zone, has been in office developments and warehouses. There has been no obvious increase in employment among the people of the boroughs of Tower Hamlets and Southwark—perhaps we shall hear more about that later-and there is not much evidence of it in the borough of Newham. That is not surprising. There is high unemployment in those boroughs — in Tower Hamlets and Southwark it is well over 20 per cent.— and they have existed next to the City of London for many years, but unless great efforts are made to integrate the education and training of the people living in those boroughs with the job prospects available in the City, and now in the extension of the City into the docklands, they will not be recruited — they will simply miss out. Therefore, a great effort must be made if success is to be achieved in recruiting local labour and reducing unemployment in the docklands boroughs.
  The second and most seriously worrying feature of docklands is the failure of the LDDC to deal with the problem of housing and homelessness in the London boroughs. That is not a specious point. The LDDC has 12,000 homes either completed or under construction. Although rather more are under construction than completed, it is nevertheless a substantial number. Yet while that has been happening in docklands, since the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 set up the LDDC, the housing problems in the three most affected boroughs — Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Newham — have become considerably worse. The number of homeless people has increased, the number on the waiting list has grown and the general condition of housing has deteriorated.
  Who has benefited by the new houses in those areas? At the beginning, the LDDC made an effort to adopt a policy of what it called affordable housing. It deliberately tailored the price of houses to what it thought were the purses of those who lived in the area. But the boroughs are not rich and, on the whole, the people living in them have below, or even well below, average income for the London area as a whole. They could not afford the houses. As the years have gone by, house prices have zoomed higher in docklands and its neighbouring boroughs than in any other part of London. Anyone who lives in London knows what has happened to house prices in London generally during the past few years. The advertisement columns of The Observer and its supplement and of The Sunday Times and its supplement show that a new one-bedroom pied a terre in docklands costs about £70,000 to £80,000——
  Mr. Boyes: That is cheap.
  Mr. Shore: That is for a one-bedroom pied a terre. I know of a three-bedroom family house on the Isle of Dogs that was sold recently for £120,000. Such prices have no possible relevance to those living in Tower Hamlets, Southwark and Newham. Indeed, it is cruel for them,
  954
  because they are among the worst-housed people in London and, when the docklands area at last became free when the port of London moved down to the river mouth, they thought that it was a remarkable and long-awaited opportunity to have decent housing at rents or prices that they could afford. That was a natural ambition for people who lived, as their parents had before them, in squalid housing conditions.
  I do not wish to weary the House, but I must give it just a snatch of the housing position in Tower Hamlets. The whole of the docklands area that the council acquired in 1977–78 had to be handed over to the LDDC. The whole of that housing land was transferred, at the stroke of a pen, by a vesting order in 1981. All hope was then lost that houses with gardens could at last be built, rather than the masses of flats, often high rise, in the borough.
  Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House. He would surely give credence to the fact that of the 12,000 homes that have been built on LDDC land, more than 60 per cent. have been priced at less than £40,000.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: That is not true.
  Mr. Bevan: It is true and it can be substantiated. Of those houses, 40 per cent. have been bought by residents of the three docklands boroughs concerned. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) will concede those statistics.
  Mr. Shore: I am always impressed by statistics, but there are statistics and statistics. I do not believe that those given by the hon. Gentleman are necessarily a complete picture of the sale of houses in docklands. Certainly they do not reflect the position in Tower Hamlets. It is possible that the position in Newham was easier to begin with because it had more housing land and a greater tradition of owner-occupation than other docklands boroughs. I would not accept the hon. Gentleman's figures without first seriously examining them.
  Tower Hamlets has 62,000 flats and houses, of which 6,700 are officially classified as unfit for human habitation, 3,600 lack an absolutely basic amenity such as an indoor loo, bathroom or shower and 20,000 need renovation because they are damp, lack central heating or have other defects. In addition, 10,000 people are on the housing waiting list and, to add to the misery, 1,200 families are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. That is an unbelievable position. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) could relate problems of a similar magnitude in their boroughs.
  If money for the boroughs to continue their housing programmes had been sustained on the same scale as money is made available to the LDDC, there would be far less reason for complaint. However, the people in those boroughs know that their housing money has been reduced to about one third of its level a few years ago and that all the new housing developments are taking place in the docklands where only a tiny percentage of people can afford to buy the houses. What kind of friction does anyone expect to arise in such circumstances? There is bitterness and a strong feeling of being deprived and cheated.

  955
  Our total housing investment programme allocation for the past year was less than the local authority must pay to house its 1,000 homeless families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. It receives HIP funds of £17 million, but spends £22 million on bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Yet even with that appalling problem, the borough has not been able to build a single new home during the past three years. Therefore, what sort of reception does the LDDC expect in that borough? It is an absolute disgrace.
  I feel strongly that there should and must be new thinking in the Department of the Environment. It cannot possibly be said that the only way to renew, revive and restore an inner-city area is to establish a high living colony — a kind of cantonment — on the edge of an urban area and leave the remainder to wallow in misery and squalor. That is not the way to revive our cities.
  The Government would do well not merely to consider the policies they are pursuing towards adjacent local authorities but to examine again the LDDC parent legislation to see what changes are needed to make it possible for homes to be built in the boroughs in the docklands area to rent at prices that the people can afford and to see whether they can find ways of bringing the LDDC into a much more equal and open relationship with the boroughs in which it is placed. I hope that the Minister will turn his mind to that.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Hugo Summerson: Thank you very much, M r. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech.
  My constituency is Walthamstow. I have found that many people do not know exactly where Walthamstow is. I recommend that they get on the Victoria line northbound and stay on the train until it stops and they will find themselves in Walthamstow. It is an area with a very interesting history. It is mentioned in the Domesday Book as having a population of 82. In the 16th century it had six fisheries on the River Lea. It also employed a royal forester with an annual salary of £72 which for those days was very generous; he was also permitted to take 20 loads of dead wood and a buck and a doe annually.
  In the last century Walthamstow was developed. The Warner estate now covers about 25 per cent. of my constituency. It grew rapidly with the coming of the railways. Large areas which had provided vegetables for the London market and which had grown grass to feed bullocks, also for the London market, went under bricks and mortar.
  Walthamstow is part of the London borough of Waltham Forest. To the north I have the constituency of Chingford and to the south the constituency of Leyton. To the east is Epping Forest—alas, no more with deer. The odd fox and the odd rabbit are all that it can boast. To the west are reservoirs in the Lea valley. In those reservoirs I am happy to say that we still have coarse and trout fishing which prove popular for the people of north-east London.
  Walthamstow has an interesting political history as well. It used to be two constituencies, East and West. Since the war Walthamstow, West has always been a Labour-held seat. Indeed, from 1950 to 1955 it was Clem Attlee's seat. Walthamstow, East was normally a Tory-held seat. In 1967 Walthamstow, West went Conservative in a by-election. East went Conservative in a by-election in 1969. They both went back to Labour in 1970. In 1970 Walthamstow, West returned Eric Deakins. In 1974
  956
  Walthamstow, East and West were amalgamated to form one constituency and Eric Deakins then represented the constituency until June of this year.
  I know that it is customary to say a few words of appreciation about one's predecessor. Fortunately, in this case I am happy to do so and I do not have to do it through gritted teeth. I met Eric Deakins on several occasions. I always thought that he was an extremely pleasant man. More than that, he worked assiduously for his constituents. I have also heard from people who knew him in the House how pleasant and popular he was. I am very glad to take this opportunity to pay that tribute to him.
  Walthamstow is an area which is becoming increasingly prosperous for various reasons. The wholescale development of east and north-east London, London docklands, the M11, the M25 and Stansted airport are all factors.
  Another is that housing in Walthamstow is still comparatively cheap. I am looking for a flat there myself. The firm of mortgage brokers that I am using tells me that at present it is getting more inquiries from people wanting to live in Walthamstow than anywhere else in London. That is not surprising when one considers that we have the Victoria line and overground railway lines into Liverpool street. Communications are excellent.
  However, a spoke was put in the wheel of burgeoning prosperity in my constituency by my local council. The London borough of Waltham Forest returned a Labour-controlled council last year. Throughout the year there were rumours of an enormous rates increase. As the prospective Tory candidate, I simply could not believe that such a thing would happen, but it did. Three months before the general election, the Labour council in the London borough of Waltham Forest put up the rates by 62 per cent. There was a popular explosion, with enormous demonstrations at Walthamstow town hall. Over 5,000 people attended to demonstrate, month after month after month. It was not surprising that in those circumstances the people of Walthamstow decided not to return a Labour Member.
  There are, of course, more problems than just the rates. There is the effect that high rates have on businesses. My largest local employer, which employs 600 to 700 people, has to increase its turnover by £1·5 million a year to generate enough increased profit merely to pay the increase in its rates bill. My local hospital, Whipps Cross, now has to find over £200,000 a year extra to pay its enormous rates bill. So the council is not doing its bit to help with the regeneration of Waltham Forest. In fact, that name is a misnomer. It implies leafy suburbs. That may be so in Chingford but not in the rest of the borough. The council has made many errors and the people call it to account.
  I want to turn to planning, another factor in inner-city regeneration which too many councils seem to use as a weapon against those who want to bring in private enterprise. The way that so many councils administer planning law is a national disgrace. In far too many cases, when someone puts in an application it sits on a teetering heap for weeks. It is supposed to be determined within two months but it seldom is. It may be taken to appeal but one will find that with written representations that can take six months. A public inquiry can take up to a year.
  All the time, the areas of dereliction in inner cities are waiting undeveloped. Some of them have been undeveloped for decades. That is why I welcome the urban development corporations. They can clear up all the

  957
  derelict areas which for far too long have been the subject of the misguided efforts of local authorities. They can cut through all the red tape. They can once more bring to these areas a prosperity which has been sadly lacking. I hope to see public finance and private endeavour in a powerful partnership for the future which will bring prosperity to all the people.
  5.25 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: We welcome the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) to the House. I shared a platform with him recently and heard him make a maiden speech, as it were, outside this House. He appreciates the balance of interests represented by his constituency between the city and the suburbs. Older hon. Members — or those who are younger in age, but older in service — will wish to associate themselves with the tribute that he paid to his predecessor, Eric Deakins, who was a warmly appreciated colleague. Eric did an assiduous job on many issues, including overseas matters. Although his defeat was not in one sense surprising—as the hon. Gentleman explained— it was much regretted. We hope that the hon. Gentleman will live up to the high standards of his predecessor. I am sure that he intends to try to do so.
  I see that the hon. Gentleman's majority was about as small as Eric's, so life will be lived fairly sharply on a knife edge for the remaining four years. It is interesting to note that the massive rate rise implemented by Waltham Forest council was a major factor in the hon. Gentleman's success, yet his party now proposes to abolish the mechanism which led to his election, and reduce local authorities' power to do such politically dangerous things. I warn him, gently and kindly, that external forces may not provide such help in the future, so may he profit while he can.
  I am uneasy about the Bill for two reasons. The Bill represents a break with tradition which is wrong, and treats corporations differently from local authorities. It deals with two aspects of the financing of urban development corporations, of which there are two up and running — London and Merseyside — and four in the pipeline, about which we are hearing more and more. The hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), for example, spoke about Trafford Park. The Bill proposes a new limit for loans and removes the limits on the powers of UDCs to obtain grants. The Minister said that the Bill deals substantially with loans, but it also deals substantially with grants. I find it unacceptable that, when the Bill is enacted, UDCs will be treated differently in this respect from local government.
  Under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, which my colleagues and Labour Members opposed—I was not an hon. Member at that time—the Government must lay an order before the House if they need to raise the financial limit. We then debate that order and decide whether to raise the limit. We have had two such debates—the last one was in July—and, in both cases, the orders were approved. We also raised the limit in the New Towns and Urban Corporations Act 1985, but none of these debates has led to a change in the system. This Bill changes the system. UDCs may obtain
  958
  Government grants from the common allocation of moneys without parliamentary approval, no matter what the limit.
  The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) was right when he said that we shall have less constitutional opportunity to debate the financing of UDCs because the Government will be able to increase the grant power without consulting the House. Although we will have a general power of debate in the annual Supply Estimates debates and other general allocation debates, there will be no specific development corporation debates. However, we must debate and approve the rate support grant orders every year. This is an unacceptable difference of treatment.
  That is why I was surprised that the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) did not put on record the Labour party's opposition to the Bill. Labour colleagues in my area oppose the idea that local government must come cap in hand to Government and have their finances debated in the House, yet the Government give a quango the power to obtain money as and when it wants, without obtaining any parliamentary approval. It is paradoxical that the Labour party here will not declare its opposition to the Bill. I declare my opposition to it, and, if it is not amended, I and my colleagues will vote against its Third Reading—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] The weekly parliamentary meeting started at 5.30 pm, so that is exactly where they are. I hope that the Labour party will therefore join me in trying to amend the Bill.
  Why have the Government changed their attitude? Why did we originally have limits on grants if limits are not needed now? Did the Government make a mistake? Did they have second thoughts or did pressure come from somewhere? The Minister did not adequately explain the Government's change of policy. Why have they changed their policy since July 1987? We had no idea during that debate that the Bill would be introduced, and there was nothing about it in the Queen's Speech or the Conservative party manifesto. Do the Government agree that the scrutiny exercised by the House is an important part of monitoring the activities of urban development corporations? Whatever view of UDCs we might have, it is an important exercise. There is no other way to monitor them. They are quangos appointed by the Secretary of State. They meet in secret, except for rare occasions. The Bill will remove some fundamental constitutional rights.
  The Bill would increase the limit in relation to loans from £30 million to £100 million. In relative terms, that increase is much greater than the previous upgradings. Borrowing will have to increase more than three times before a further order, in relation to that part of the financing of urban development corporations, must be placed before Parliament.
  Unless the Government suddenly agree to provide much more money, we are unlikely to have frequent debates on the matter. My fear — this is the general political point—is that the Government are opening the door for more direct funding of undemocratic authorities. To be fair, they have been doing it since the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) announced the new urban policy in 1979. We now are to have mini urban development corporations, and housing action trusts which are unaccountable, non-partnership agencies.
  I do not dispute the fact that the Government have a role to play and that they take an interest in the matter,

  959
  but the best mechanism to help urban areas would be to set up partnership agencies to work with local government. There have been some good examples of that. I should be interested to hear from the Minister whether the initiatives taken in Sheffield, Birmingham and elsewhere, together with the the enterprise boards, do not confirm that the partnership model in practice is much more acceptable than these proposals.
  Mr. Trippier: That might have been in the Liberal party's manifesto; it could even have been in the SDP manifesto. We might have thought it was a good idea to put it in our manifesto, but we did not. We said in our manifesto that we would have more urban development corporations. We were open with the electorate about what we wanted, and we were elected on that platform. As a result, we will create more mini urban development corporations which will mean more money — another major reason for introducing this legislation.
  Mr. Hughes: I am not against more money being made available — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No one is against more money being made available for urban regeneration. It is certainly needed, and it is not before time. We all accept that the Government have the constitutional authority to do it, even though they went to the country and lost popular support as a percentage of the total vote. We should not forget that they have been to the country twice and their popular support has decreased each time.
  Mr. Bevan: What about the Liberal party?
  Mr. Hughes: Our support increased once and declined once, whereas the Conservative party's support decreased twice.
  We accept that the Government have the authority to do it, but we oppose the idea that the money should come through this direct mechanism.
  The Minister will remember my next point cropping up during Question Time. I would have more confidence in the proposals if the Government had better control over their own finances. The Minister will have seen the reports in today's press that the Comptroller and Auditor General has not granted a certificate to the Department of the Environment. He refuses to approve its annual accounts for the second year running because of its failure to sort out a backlog of nearly £210 million of unchecked urban development grants. The problem has been caused by the failure of external auditors, some of them private firms —so much for the privatisation activities of the DOE.
  The report also states:
  "The National Audit Office confirmed yesterday that the problem was not the fault of the local authorities."
  It could not have been the fault of some authorities, because the Government have abolished them, but it is clear that the ones that the Government have not yet abolished cannot be blamed either. The Government's management of their finances is not persuasive and gives us cause for great concern.
  We must also debate whether the Government have sorted out their policy on urban areas. I shall quote one of the Minister's speeches. On Monday 5 October 1987, the Financial Times reported:
  "Mr. David Trippier, junior minister at the Environment Department with special responsibility for inner cities, has admitted privately that the Government has not yet devised a successful formula for attracting the private sector to invest in the inner cities."
  Mr. Trippier: I did not dream that I would be given an opportunity to deny as strenuously as I can, not only to the House but to the world, that I said any such thing. The hon. Gentleman will see that the report is by someone called Hazel Duffy. She was not there; I said no such thing; and I am glad of the opportunity to deny it. I have said many times that the Government's policy is clear and has been stated in the manifesto.
  Mr. Hughes: As I was not there, I must accept what the Minister says, but I will have to hunt for the bankers, contractors and other representatives of the private sector who were at Templeton college, Oxford, to discover what the Minister said — unless he wishes to send me a transcript of his speech.
  Even if the Minister does not admit it, I suggest that the report is true. Many of his colleagues are saying the same thing, and I could produce a sheaf of quotations to prove my point. The other day, the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Britian) was quoted as saying that the Government should be wary of allowing their radical inner-city package to seem like an all-out attack on local democracy. That is from someone who, until recently, was at the centre of government. The Times of 17 August states:
  "Inadequate local consultation, under-funding and too much Whitehall control are blunting the Government's campaign to revive inner cities, senior executives of several large companies have told The Times."
  The Guardian of the same date has the headline:
  "Thatcher wrong on inner cities, Bow Group say.
  That is a Conservative party group. Another article in The Guardian states:
  "There is little prospect of uniting five Whitehall departments in the inner city drive — Environment, Industry, Education, Employment and the Home Office."
  We still do not know which Department will lead, which Minister will be in charge and whether or not the Government have a policy which allows us, within European law, to give priority to people in the inner cities. All those matters must be resolved. I look forward to the Minister's reply, because until now it has been all cloud and mist and all Government executive action.
  I hope that the Government will realise that, although the regeneration of the inner cities is important arid welcome, they must tell us how they will do it and not rely on the hit-and-miss examples that we have seen so far. I have talked, as has the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, to the executives of the LDDC board and to other people in London, and they admit that, at the beginning, the corporation was given the job of regeneration, but without any guidelines being laid down. Quite literally, it had to learn as it went along. That is not a satisfactory experience because it plays with people's lives.
  Mr. Frank Field: I was surprised by the hon. Gentleman's comment that the policy is hit and miss. It does not look like that on Merseyside, where the Government have spent more than £180 million on the urban development corporation. That work has been highly successful, but the vast majority of the funds have been spent on the Liverpool side, with only £4 million being spent on the Birkenhead side. That looks like a precise policy. My constituents want me to raise the fact that, while one side of the river riots and gets a great deal of money, the other side does not. How does that fit in with the Prime Minister's policy that violence does not pay

  961
  under this Government? How does it fit in with the comment that the Government's policy is hit and miss? The policy is precise in Merseyside. It discriminates against the Wirral while favouring Liverpool.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important and interesting point. It is right to ask the Minister what the Government are going to do. The hon. Gentleman has shown the arbitrary nature of the policy. In his area, the policy concentrates on Liverpool because the then Secretary of State for the Environment took a specific interest in Liverpool and decided to go there and do something. Policy has been left to arbitrary choice. There is no equality about it. This Secretary of State has chosen another four UDCs.
  Policy has often targeted specific areas and outside London, areas have been targeted that do not have many people. I inquired about this point of the hon. Member for Davyhulme. It would be helpful if, at some stage, the Minister could tell us the accurate figures for resident population in UDC areas, but I understand that, except in London, development corporation areas have not contained any parts with a substantial population. A different strategy must be applied to areas that have people.
  Mr. Trippier: Yes; the black country.
  Mr. Hughes: I am sorry; I do not have the figures. I am inquiring after them, quite honestly.
  I hope that the intervention by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) will prompt the Government to have a strategy rather than a series of hit-and-miss policies. As the hon. Gentleman said, those policies have hit Liverpool but missed his constituency of Birkenhead. That is poor planning, because often the substantial problems are the same on each side of the river.
  I wish to make some brief final points about my own area. From my experience, some funny and unsatisfactory things are going on in London as a result of the Government's strategy. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan), who has now left his place, was wrong about the balance of owner-occupation and rented housing. The figures were given in the Official Report in March and April 1987.
  On my side of the river, only 25 per cent. of the properties that have been built in the previous six years on LDDC sites are affordable. "Affordable" means costing less than £40,000, for which one can get one bedroom at most. Indeed, often that will buy only a studio flat. An increasing percentage of those properties are for sale for sums in excess of £100,000. It is scandalous to allow people to have a second home costing such a price when many people have no first home. We must be honest about the results. Yes, people have been willing to buy and many have bought properties. However, that is becoming much more difficult and, increasingly, such development is not in the interests of the local community.
  The figures for jobs are even more telling. These are official figures from answers given by the Government. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) tabled a written question that received the revealing answer that in London between 1981 and 1987 there was a net loss of new jobs within docklands if transferred jobs
  962
  that were brought in are discounted. In fact, there has been a net loss of 517 jobs in docklands boroughs during the past six years. It will take a long time to correct that.
  Constituencies such as mine have 30 per cent. adult male unemployment. Indeed, my constituency has either the fastest or almost the fastest growing unemployment rate of any constituency in Britain. There is no proof that the docklands development is really working. Indeed, those figures prove that it is not working in the best interests of the local community. Such areas are poor and deprived, and people object to these policies. The Government are going down a route that allows private forces to dominate, without partnership, the democratic locally elected authorities. The Government are not taking account of what has happened during the past six years, and that will lead to further mistakes.
  Urban development must be for all, not for the few. It must be for common profit and welfare, not for speculative profit and minimum local welfare. The Government have national responsibility for the next four years. I hope that they will try to change their policy, because at the moment it is selectively beneficial, and that is not acceptable.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Richard Holt: It is always a privilege to be able to compliment a new hon. Member on a maiden speech, but it is doubly so when that hon. Member made his maiden speech without reference to any notes or without reading a single word. My hon Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) made a speech that was in the best traditions of this House—it was not controversial, and it complimented his predecessor. That showed that my hon. Friend will speak here and will represent Walthamstow for many years.
  I should also like to compliment the Minister on introducing this measure so soon after the July debate. You may ask, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why I wish to speak in the debate when my constituency of Langbaurgh does not have one foot of UDC in it. I suspect that is because the Ministry does not have a clue where Langbaurgh is. I have come to that conclusion because if any Ministers had visited my constituency in a ministerial capacity during the past five years they would have recognised the dereliction there. They would have read the statistics on local unemployment and would have seen the need to include some of the area in the UDC on Teeside.
  As far as I can see, the Ministry has decided to provide adequately for the birds and fishes on the north side of the Tees but to provide less well for the human beings as far south of the Tees as my constituency. I hope that the boundaries will be reconsidered soon. I remind my hon. Friend that when the boundaries were first decided I made immediate representations because not one foot of Langbaurgh was included. I was told that the Ministry would take an early opportunity to redress the position. If the Government have taken this early opportunity to redress the position on money, it would not have hurt them too much to slip in a couple of million pounds extra and to give a little of that to my constituency to help with its areas of dereliction.
  Langbaurgh suffers because the basis of its prosperity came to an end before the type of nanny state that underwrites corporations today. The iron industry, which extracted its wealth from my area, ran out of iron. Therefore, the area became derelict. That happened before

  963
  we had such bodies as new town corporations or urban development corporations. Today, we are locked between the urban development corporation in the north, into which money is being pumped, and the rural development corporation in the south which is also having money pumped into it. We are the narrow sandwich in the middle that is never visited or seen by Ministers. We have old mining areas and small villages. Often the village is L-shaped with the mine at its apex. We could do with some help from the Government for the dereliction that needs to be cleared and for the regeneration of jobs.
  It is not quite the Government's fault that in about 1980–81 ICI and British Steel offloaded 22,000 out of 47,000 workers in the area. That was the measure of the unemployment caused by two major employers which we have been seeking to tackle. One reason why we have been less successful on Teesside is that local authorities are manifestly poor, both in their elected membership and, in many instances, in their officers.
  Miss Mowlam rose——
  Mr. Holt: There are, of course, always notable exceptions.
  I thought that hon. Members would want to find out why these problems do not occur in the south of England. Why are there not these problems where there are Conservative-controlled councils? Why are these problems in the northern region? An examination of the composition of local authorities explains it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson), who has now gone after making his maiden speech—Ido not blame him; he has probably gone for a well earned drink—mentioned planning. Planning in Langbaurgh is run by a planning committee, the former chairman of which was formerly a bus cleaner. I cannot imagine what skill, knowledge and expertise in cleaning a bus—I make no apology——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have taken a flexible and tolerant attitude to the scope of the debate, but the hon. Member is getting very wide of the financial limits on urban development corporations.
  Mr. Holt: I accept your stricture, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to some extent. But the urban development corporations are all about planning——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member, on reflection, should accept my stricture.
  Mr. Holt: I accept your stricture wholeheartedly, Sir. The UDCs are about planning. Planning is carried out by a local authority. The chairman of the Langbaurgh planning authority was a bus cleaner. That is the calibre of the people whom industrialists and business men have to meet and talk to, with a view to moving their businesses into the area.
  Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): Does my hon. Friend agree that, to promote the future well-being of local government and local democracy, it would be a good idea if planning committees and others interested in regeneration—the subject of this debate—encouraged as many of their work force from all levels of industry, both shop floor and management, to take part full-time in the affairs of their authorities?
  Mr. Holt: I want greater participation. There has been a great deal of discussion about having television cameras
  964
  in the House. If television cameras were permanently inside some of the town halls in the north of England, especially in Langbaurgh and Middlesbrough, the squalls for local democracy and the way in which local democracy is handled might be seen differently by many people.
  Mr. Frank Field: The hon. Gentleman suggested that bus drivers, cleaners and others would not be as suitable chairmen as other people. Are we not looking for the qualities that people bring to the chairmanships of committees? A cleaner of buses may bring a fairer mind to the task of being chairman of a planning committee than would a person linked with estate agents.
  Mr. Holt: I accept that a person can be trained for that purpose. The hon. Member for Redcar (Miss Mowlam) said earlier that Labour-controlled councils had gone out of their way to bring people to the north-east, and so have I. If the industrialists and people of standing who are meeting leaders of local authorities in the north find that those people are unable to string two sentences together, they will not go to the area. They will go to those local authorities where they are better received — in the midlands and the south of England. That is one reason why there is a problem in getting industrialists to go to the north of England.
  Miss Mowlam: I am served by the same district council of Langbaurgh and can say without any doubt that, in the short time in which I have been an hon. Member, I have had nothing but help, experience and knowledge from the elected members of that council. I hope that when the hon. Gentleman talks about people as "poor" elected members he is not referring to the Labour members. Perhaps he should talk to some of the Conservative members who have been elected before he makes such statements.
  The hon. Gentleman asked why local authorities in the north are perceived as having greater problems than those in the south. He prefaced his comments with a statement about the extent of job losses on Teesside since 1979–45,000, to be exact. He then asked why the local authority has problems with housing, education and social services. If the hon. Gentleman had linked those two statements, he would have understood exactly why local authorities in the north face those problems. The hon. Gentleman should think hard before he makes such comments about one of the elected members on Langbaurgh council who has experience and knowledge of the area.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be wise for the House to have regard to my earlier comments and to return to the Urban Development Corporations (Financial Limits) Bill.
  Mr. Holt: I began by saying that it was important for the House and my hon. Friend the Minister to recognise where Langbaurgh is. Already since becoming a Member the hon. Member for Redcar has written an article for "The House Magazine", trying to put on the map where her constituency is. That is hardly a good reflection on her predecessor, who held the seat for 23 years. The constituency was fully inside the UDC area. Little was known about that constituency until I went to that part of Teesside. Very few contributions were made in the House by the hon. Lady's predecessor. The hon. Lady was elected after her predecessor was deselected by his party——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to allow the debate to continue along these lines. Unless the hon. Member can direct his remarks to the Bill, he must resume his seat.
  Miss Mowlam: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to clarify the position of the previous hon. Member for Redcar, who was not deselected but stood down of his own free will. If the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) had read the article in "The House Magazine", he would have seen——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is compounding the offence of which I am complaining.
  Mr. Holt: I hope that at the end of this debate a few more hon. Members and people outside will know where Langbaurgh and Redcar and the UDC's boundaries are. Even Ministers might begin to know where the UDC is. Perhaps more industrialists will get to know where Langbaurgh and Teesside are and there will be greater penetration of job prospects in the area.
  The UDC in Teesside is only newly formed. It has been suggested that the composition of its membershp was biased and that there were not sufficient Labour members. When the Government first announced the UDC, the leader of the Middlesbrough council denounced the Government and said that it would be a terrible thing to have a UDC—until he was offered a seat on the board. Then it became fashionable to be a member of the UDC.
  While I accept your strictures in full, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I must refer back to planning, in the context of a UDC that will be able to cut through much of the present bureaucracy. Whichever party is in power, the Government of the day sit on planning applications for a long time, until it suits them to allow a plan to go through. When I led a local council in the south of England, a planning application went in that the Ministry did not want. Two and a half years passed before a public inquiry was announced. That is how things can be slowed down. I am not making a party political point, because the Government and the local authority in question were Conservative. The UDC will be able to cut through all that red tape. It will be able to take many more instant decisions and that is good.
  Recently, and sadly, we lost the Wali of Swat. I am sure that all hon. Members read his obituary a fortnight ago. He did away with the lawyers in his kingdom; the UDCs are doing away with planners in their kingdoms. The Wali of Swat was able to deal with case after case every day —as many as 80 to 100 cases—and he dispensed justice. If we can speed up planning applications in this country through the mechanism of the UDCs——
  Mr. Simon Hughes: With justice.
  Mr. Holt: Indeed, with justice. I do not maintain that there must be injustice. What there must not be is a slowing up. We shall then bring in the money and try to obtain private money to match the UDC pump-priming exercise.
  Mr. Frank Field: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to mislead the House. Merely because a development corporation has been created does not mean that it will act as the hon. Gentleman says. I intervened during the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to say that we in the Wirral —in Birkenhead—are covered by an urban development
  966
  corporation, and little action has taken place. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that if development is not held back by waiting for planning application to be processed, it will take place more quickly, but the mere fact of having an urban development corporation does not mean that action will follow—it has not followed on our side of the river. Other hon. Members who think that something may happen in their areas because of their designated status should look at Merseyside to see the difference in treatment.
  Mr. Holt: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. The UDCs are relatively new, and each area has its own unique features. Probably, each will develop in a slightly different way. I hope that the failures and mistakes of some of the UDCs will not recur in the Teesside, Tyne and Wear and other development corporations, which are, as yet, embryonic. They have only a few officers, and have not yet achieved much. One cannot make a generalised statement about them, except that they are in operation, and we hope that they will learn, rather than repeat others' mistakes.
  The north-east of England deserves better than the representation it has had by the Labour party over many years. The UDC that we are to have in Teesside will give a fresh stimulus. For many years, we had the North-East development corporation, which spent a fortune and achieved nothing. It did not produce jobs—except for the boys. It did nothing——
  Mr. Frank Field: It has not even done that in Birkenhead.
  Mr. Holt: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, we are talking at cross purposes. The NEDC, which was unique to the north-east of England, had nothing to do with Birkenhead. It was a composite body of trade unions, local authorities and others. It spent a lot of money and became moribund. It has been replaced by the Northern development corporation, which is a new corporate unit trying to bring industry into the north-east of England. One of the reasons why the NEDC failed lamentably was that it was too big. It was overloaded with representations from all sorts of people. One of the beauties of the UDC is that the representation is small, so it can make decisions relatively quickly and is not overloaded with bureaucracy.
  Mr. Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene before he finishes. He made a comment about Councillor Mike Carr and the attitude of Middlesbrough council when the UDC was announced. All the councils in the area have said that they will co-operate fully with the urban development corporation. Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that when councillor Mike Carr and I saw the Prime Minister in Middlesbrough after the general election, we made it plain that we would support the UDC?
  Mr. Holt: I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am saying that there was a change of heart by Councillor Carr, who condemned the Government on the first announcement of the UDC for Teesside, and changed his mind later on. I have no doubt that he is an honourable man who will support the UDC as he says he will and that he will stand by its corporate decisions even if he, as an individual, does not agree with some of them. I am not criticising any of the local authorities in Teesside, all of which are Labour-controlled and have said that they will

  967
  co-operate with the UDC. I am not criticising their willingness to co-operate. I have some reservations about their ability to do so, which is a different matter.
  Mr. Dennis Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Holt: The hon. Gentleman has not been in the House much this afternoon, but he could have interrupted at any time. I see no reason to give way, because I doubt whether there will be much of a contribution from him.
  We have been debating the amount of money that the Government are putting in, and the financial controls on that money. We have also had quite a proper shot across the bow on the accountability of the spending of that money. As far as I can work it out, only Members of Parliament will be able to raise questions sufficiently frequently and in depth to find out what exactly the UDCs are up to. I am not sure that that additional, onerous task is one that we should have.
  Will my hon. Friend the Minister tell us whether the UDCs, with their additional funding, will be able to issue some sort of regular bulletin or minutes of their work, so that we can see exactly where they are going, without having to ask questions all the time? Perhaps the Government will not go along with my thoughts. If not, they must make the case for why not, rather than dismissing them out of hand. The whole issue of accountability in an area carries with it suspicion, lack of knowledge and fear of the unknown. If the Government are to make the UDCs successful in areas such as Teesside they must take all the people with them, and to do that, they must make available information that might sometimes be embarrassing but must always be accurate.
  Will the Government give some sign that they are prepared to examine again the boundaries of the areas covered by the UDC, and incorporate part of my constituency, which is just as derelict as any part of the constituencies of the hon. Members for Redcar and for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner)? Many areas in my constituency are worse in many ways than those areas. The rate of unemployment is no different. I cannot say why we have been singled out for exclusion by the Government, so I hope that they will reconsider the boundaries of the UDC so that Langbaurgh can be included in future.
  Until fairly recently the debate was pretty quiet, low key and almost a non-event. I confess that it was difficult to stay awake during the major thrust of the speech by the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes). It was a speech of moderation of the first order. Yet we are talking about inner cities, about urban development corporations, about the main plank of the Government's policies in many ways and areas where, in the main, the people are represented by Labour Members. A derisory number of Labour Members have been in the Chamber for the debate, yet in many ways——
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Where are the Conservatives?
  Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) said that there were only five hon. Members on Opposition Benches, including the Front Bench spokesman. [Interruption.] I get the impression that many Opposition Members learned their trade in town halls from the way in which some have been shouting from a sedentary position.
  968
  I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to define, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington, the difference between a wealth-creating entrepreneur and a speculative developer. At the beginning of the hon. Gentleman's speech he was condemning the speculative developers and at the end he was praying that there could be more entrepreneurs and risk takers. He was condemning the docklands development. I wonder how many people realise that one of the principal men behind the development of the architectural excellence of the constituency of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) conceived the idea of redeveloping the warehouses when he was 23. He had the gumption to go to the bank, get the money and do it. That is real risk-taking and the sort of entrepreneur that we hope will now go with the UDCs to the Tees and Tyne areas and the north-east of England. I hope that when they get there they will not be stultified by local authorities that are negative and have no idea about profit-making jobs. This is all about jobs.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I do not want to postpone the ending of the hon. Gentleman's contribution for too long, but he referred to the 23-year-old developer. I presume that he means Mr. Wadsworth, who started at the age of 23. Fine. Let him do well, but not when one of the results the other day was to propose a tower block of luxury flats in the middle of Bermondsey that looked like a phallic symbol, which nobody wanted but which would provide a massive profit for himself and his company, but not benefit the community. That is not a benefit, but a disadvantage of development.
  Mr. Holt: That was an aesthetic argument. I was talking about entrepreneurial risk taking. That man is doing that and seeking to make a profit.
  You asked me to be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I have been—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] As a consequence of that, I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion by saying that this has been a happy debate because the Government are putting more money into the area next to mine. It will be an even happier debate when they start putting some of that money into Langbaurgh.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. George Howarth: I hesitate to comment on some of the issues raised by the debate following the remarks made by the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), but we must address ourselves to them.
  With the Government's new-found interest in the inner cities, there may be some cause for concern that the outer areas are being neglected. There seems to be some difficulty of definition, particularly with regard to urban development corporations—for example, what areas are in, what areas are out, which schemes apply where and how the problems are to be tackled. My concern is as much with the approach through UDCs as with outer areas, particularly as my constituency is one. I was interested to note that the then Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), said on 14 September 1979 when he announced the urban development corporations:
  "It is important that we learn the lessons of the impact of the various policies that have been pursued by successive Governments. The Government, over the coming year, will be looking very closely at the mix of schemes produced under the present arrangements."

  969
  Perhaps this is the most important point:
  "In addition we will need to review the role of inner city policy within the wider context."
  I take it that "the wider context" also covers outer areas and the plethora of regimes and systems that have been introduced.
  In that context, we must start to measure the effectiveness of UDCs and other types of scheme. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and others covered leverage and gearing. I do not intend to go into that. However, currently in England about 210,000 hectares of urban land are vacant, and much of that is derelict. I am reliably assured that this is the equivalent of the whole of Nottinghamshire. That is a great problem that needs to be tackled. I suspect that the UDC model is the only way to tackle it.
  The effect of such concentrations of that problem in certain areas is worrying. In Liverpool, which has figured in some of the debates today, it is estimated that 10 per cent. of the land is vacant. One has only to drive casually round the city to realise that there are horrendous eyesores and problems as a result of that vacant urban land. In my area of Knowsley it is conservatively estimated that about 15 per cent. of all urban land is vacant. Driving around some of the industrial estates, one sees derelict sites which, in the 1950s and the 1960s, were formerly thriving industrial areas and which are now nothing more than a heap of rubble. Such areas are in a queue with many others to be redeveloped by the local authorities for industrial use some time in the future, I hope.
  One also sees the parts left over from large municipal developments in the 1950s and the 1960s that have not been treated properly and are an eyesore, often because of reductions in local government expenditure. They are badly maintained and not kept up to a reasonable standard. Thus people's lives are impoverished because of the environment in which they live and work. There is no question but that the visual impact of the area is also damaged, as well as the prospects of the local authority and others of attracting further industry and investors.
  Mr. Trippier: There is quite a lot of sense in what the hon. Gentleman says. Some of the dereliction to which he refers is acknowledged by his area being one of the 57 programme authorities. So it should be. Will the hon. Gentleman say what he has just said to the House to Liverpool city council? Will he ask what it is doing about the dereliction that we detected, and that he must acknowledge, within the enterprise zone area? When I visit Liverpool, I have to pass through the enterprise zone if I arrive at Speke airport. Although so many Labour-controlled authorities in our region, in the north-west, have been successful in marketing their enterprise zones—most of them are now full—there seems to be a lack of willingness on the part of the local city council to market that area, which would transform it dramatically. What does the hon. Gentleman have to say about that?
  Mr. Howarth: It is not my role to speak, in the House or elsewhere, for or on behalf of Liverpool city council. However, I acknowledge that there are problems and that some of the development that has taken place in the enterprise zone was not what was intended when the enterprise zone was established. In defence of my local authority, I remind the hon. Gentleman that, while it is
  970
  true that it has had urban programme status and has used it to redevelop the industrial estates, it has been a drip-feeding process. Developments are not taking place quickly enough, which has left my authority at a disadvantage in competing with firms that may be considering going into new towns or the urban development corporation area. It is the Government's conscious policy to concentrate investment in that area in preference to other outer areas.
  That is precisely my point about the mistaken assumptions. No matter how much attention is paid to urban development corporations, and no matter how large the number of derelict land grants and urban development grants available, there has been during the Government's period of office a steady growth of vacant urban land. The amount of vacant urban land has increased because factories in industrial areas have closed and there has not been enough investment to counter that. While the Government are doing something about the problems in some areas, the problems of other areas are growing at an alarming rate.
  Mr. Frank Field: Will my hon. Friend comment on my point that urban development corporation status is not a panacea in itself? It does not follow that anything will happen once one has gained that status for one's area. The Merseyside development corporation needs a kick in the pants to get it working as effectively on our side of the river as it is on the Liverpool side.
  Mr. Howarth: I accept my hon. Friend's point and I know from previous forays that he has made into various battles that he is probably the best man to give Merseyside development corporation a kick in the seat of the pants. It is fairly evident that the Merseyside development corporation has concentrated on the areas fanning out from the pierhead. There is little or no evidence of the corporation's work on the other side of the Mersey.
  My main point is perhaps less controversial than some of the other points that have been made during the debate. I repeat that the Government are missing some of the problems that bedevil urban planning in this country. I have some experience of the processes and practices of valuation. We have to contend with a number of problems in that respect, whether through the creation of UDCs or through the local authorities.
  Having worked for a housing association, I have some indirect experience of negotiating inner-city and outer-areas sites for community-based housing schemes. The practice and processes of land valuation are based on some strange assumptions. On some occasions the housing association for which I worked was the only organisation interested in developing a site but we nevertheless spent months and months negotiating with the land valuers. I am criticising not the local authorities but the professions. Endless time is wasted. Often the value of the site may be virtually zero, but the land valuers negotiate as if there was oil underneath it.
  Commercial developers could be forgiven for walking away in such cases. It is only organisations such as community-based housing associations that have the time, patience and commitment to the community to negotiate their way through the maze of procedures and professional problems. The land valuation arrangements are more than ripe for attention. We must do something about them because otherwise, no matter what bodies we set up, the blight and problems in urban areas will continue.
  Mr. Irvine Patnick: The hon. Member has missed a fundamental point. In my experience, land ownership is a jigsaw and we need an organisation to bring the pieces together.
  Mr. Howarth: I will be addressing that point shortly.
  Mr. Patnick: It is taking a long time, if I may say so.
  Mr. Howarth: As my hon. Friends have said, it is too early to judge the overall performance of the UDCs. However, I believe that some of the disciplines that they use are bedevilled with the same problems as those from which other bodies suffer.
  Before the Government proceed with the other initiatives that are said to be in train, they should take a long hard look at the matter. They should also spend some time trying to jettison some of the ideological baggage that they seem to be carrying these days. I am sure that many of my hon. Friends agree that many of the traditional urban planning processes and other procedures have failed in the past. The Government must concede that frequently the market has failed, too. They have not really come to terms with that problem yet and we must recognise those simple facts of life.
  I conclude with some suggestions to which I hope the Government will give some thought. In considering some of the vacant and derelict sites in urban areas, they should examine the groundwork trust model. The Minister will be familiar with that model. That method, which also involves the local authorities, represents one way of clearing up some of the eyesores inexpensively but effectively and to prepare sites to make them more attractive for development.
  Without going into too much detail, I ask the Minister to consider the procedures that have been developed in Austria, Japan, Denmark, Sweden and other countries in collating, mapping and publishing land valuation data. That is an important part of the process of turning over and developing land.
  The Government should examine more closely the lessons that can be learned from the Scottish Development Agency's experience in Glasgow through the GEAR scheme — Glasgow Eastern Area Renewal. The SDA works in close co-operation with the local authorities in developing programmes for land development. Those schemes are undertaken in partnership with the local authorities, and I understand that they have been quite successful.
  The Government should give some thought to the suggestion of the Royal Institute of British Architects, which proposes the establishment of a national urban renewal agency with an annual budget of £1 billion. That may well be the spur that we need to review professional procedures and practices. If the body worked in partnership with local authorities, a great deal could be achieved through that mechanism.
  The Government's policy lacks clarity of purpose. It is piecemeal and is weighed down by ideological baggage. I suggest to the Government that they spend more time listening and a bit less time lecturing.
  6.28 pm
  Mr. Tim Devlin: In this, my first speech to the House, I pay tribute to the electors of Stockton, South whom I represent and to my predecessor, Ian Wrigglesworth, who in 13 years in the House built up
  972
  a reputation as a very good constituency Member of Parliament, first as the Labour Member for Thornaby and later as the SDP spokesman on trade and industry matters. May I also mention, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is 42 years since my most illustrious predecessor left this House as the Member for what is now a quite different constituency. Harold Macmillan returned as the Member for Bromley, but he never forgot our town by the Tees and he paid Stockton the great honour of taking its name when he went to another place.
  I represent a northern constituency and my cause in the House is the north. Much has been said about the north-south divide but I submit that that divide is more a perception than a reality. It persists in the minds of southern folk who think that we northerners all live in back-to-back houses and keep whippets.
  The divide between rich and poor is as sharp between Hilton, a plush village in the southern part of my constituency and Ayresome, an inner-city ward of Middlesbrough, also in my constituency, as it is between Mayfair and Brixton in London. In Ingleby Barwick, in Stockton, and in Yarm, executive housing of the very highest quality is being built at high speed to accommodate the young urban professionals of Teesside. Most of them have at least one car and many have two cars. We have some of the busiest BMW and Vauxhall dealers in the country. Where others think that there are dark satanic mills, many are enjoying a standard of living that is more consonant with the new Jerusalem.
  It is not just that the southern perception is geographically wrong—we have seen tonight how many hon. Members cannot point out Cleveland on the map. It is also economically incorrect. Recent surveys of disposable income show that the northerner is far better off than his London counterpart. Less of his income is swallowed up by the cost of housing. More can be spent on the enjoyment of life. The average travel-to-work time on Teesside is a mere 20 minutes—more often than not through open country lanes to a factory or office with guaranteed parking.
  Sometimes it is thought that enterprise has shifted exclusively to the south-east, to allegedly greener pastures, but earlier in this debate we listened to the speech of my hon. Friend the new Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson). He said that those green pastures have disappeared beneath cramped housing estates and busy motorways. The population of London now live in overcrowded tenements and travel in inhumane conditions on the London underground trains—200 or more to a carriage. Their view is restricted to the hanging straps and curved advertisements on those trains. That restricted view—that limited horizon—must not form the limit of the perceptions of the north in the House.
  I am not here to ask what the Government can do for the north. That is simple. The Government must help us to help ourselves. They must bolster our self-confidence, encourage the enterprise that we already have and help us to seize our opportunities. Those few requests are all answered by the instigation of the Teesside and Tyneside development corporations. I wholeheartedly welcome them.
  I am also here to ask what the north can do for the Government. The south seems to have forgotten, in its new-found prosperity, that it is traditionally in the north that the wealth of our nation is created. At the apogee of empire, when men of liberal views stood in this House and

  973
  debated the welfare of the Indian and the Chinaman, the engines of the expansion of empire were built in the north and were driven by coal, hewn out of the earth by northern men and women. We were the people who turned out the cannon and cutlery of every great expedition. From King's Cross to Hong Kong, the steel came from Dorman Long.
  The spark of enterprise which flashed when John Walker of Stockton first invented the safety match sparked again as the first nail was driven into the first public railway in the world from Stockton to Darlington. Now the sparks fly again as we make steel and plastics to send throughout the world. Those sparks of enterprise will not be extinguished by the damp, laconic lectures of the Opposition, who seek to gain pity for our region instead of the admiration that it so rightly deserves. Those sparks of enterprise will be fanned to a flame by the new development corporation that was set up by the Conservative Government last year to help Teesside to help itself. It is a flame to warm the soul of the nation and it is a flame to perform that vital chemistry which creates new jobs.
  The people of Teesside have learnt from the past and they are looking to the future with growing confidence in their own abilities. In the last three months, 58 per cent. of our companies have increased their sales. Similarly, during the last three months 53 per cent. of our companies have increased their work forces and 28 per cent. expect to employ more people in three months' time. A massive 75 per cent. of our companies expect their turnover to increase in the next 12 months.
  My constituents have sent me here to tell the House of their successes and to shout for the north. All is not perfect. We have heard during the debate that we on Teesside have suffered job losses on a massive scale, but the turnround has been quite dramatic. Large and successful enterprises have been set up with redundancy money. In each of the last three years, 6,000 new businesses have been set up in the north, more than 10,000 people are now self-employed and one in six people in the north own shares. Moreover, 65,000 families have bought their council homes and the youth training scheme on Teesside has been more successful than anywhere else. The talent, initiative and ability are there.
  Recently the Prime Minister visited my constituency and said:
  "With talent, initiative and ability, money will flow."
  That phrase will be the slogan under which the Teesside development corporation launches its advertising campaign this week. My only qualfication of that statement would be to agree with the words of Tennyson in a song in which he said:
  "Bright and fierce and fickle is the South,
  And dark and true and tender is the North."
  It is true that we keep our successes in the dark. Until now, we have kept the good things about the north quiet and have listened with concern to the sad stories of northern life from Opposition Members. That must change before we do our region irreparable damage.
  That campaign starts this very day, this very week. Teesside will tell the world of its successes, and every pity-seeking speech from the Opposition will be met from this side of the House with a proud statement of our achievements. The Conservative party will not hold out the begging bowl for Teesside. This party will rebuild the
  974
  future of the north on the sure foundation of its glorious industrial past. We shall not merely seek to subsidise those few great industries that we had in the last century. Shipbuilding, unfortunately, has finished on the Tees, just a surely as wooden boat building has gone from Stockton. It is time to encourage the new sparks of enterprise, not to stir the embers of the old industrial fires.
  Our Teesside development corporation is pressing forward, with speed and co-operation with all the agencies concerned, on schemes to build high-tech offices, workshops and new developments the length and breadth of Teesside—from Bowesfield lane in my constituency to Hartlepool marina. Yesterday, we were heartened by the news that next year my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to give an additional £65 million to the urban development corporations. Our new development corporation should go forward with the blessing of the House and with the benefit of this Bill. It must build on the past and look to the future.
  If, as I suggest, a brilliant future can be built on a successful past, I can do no better than welcome the Bill with the same words as were used by my predecessor, Harold Macmillan, when he ended his maiden speech 62 years ago. He said:
  "the people of this country have made up their mind that these proposals are to their benefit, and I am quite certain of this; that … although we are but young, newly arrived, and inexperienced members of the party, it has been, to have a measure like this, an immense encouragement, and we claim it as a sign of what Conservatism can do and has always done when it is true to itself."—[Official Report, 30 April 1925; Vol. 183. c. 406.]
  6.37 pm
  Mr. Gordon Oakes: It is always a great privilege to follow a maiden speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Devlin), on a number of grounds. First, I have to tell him that he did not beat one of our candidates. He beat a Social Democratic party candidate, so it was easier for him to make his speech than otherwise it would have been. Secondly, he kept strictly to the traditions of this House by referring to his predecessor and his constituency. I particularly warmed towards him, because he is from the north-east and I am from the north-west. I agree completely with much of what he said.
  The image of the north of England in the south of England is completely wrong. It is not the "Coronation Street" world that many people in the south think it is. As he said, it is a warm and friendly community. It is a working community in the north-east, just as it is in the north-west. I hope that the hon. Member will follow in the traditions of the Conservative party and of his great predecessor, Harold Macmillan.
  The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) has unfortunately just left the Chamber.
  Mr. Tony Banks: That is a plus for him.
  Mr. Oakes: No, it is not, because I was going to congratulate him, too, on his absolute honesty. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh expressed far better than did the Minister the true intentions of this Bill. The hon. Gentleman let the cat out of the bag. He told the House exactly what the Bill is about. He gloried in the fact that the chairman of a planning committee in Langbaurgh was previously a bus cleaner. What he neglected to tell the House was that that cleaner was an elected member of the

  975
  council. People voted for him. People do strange things when they vote; they vote for the most unlikely people. Some even vote for bookmakers, and they have every right to do so.
  The hon. Gentleman revealed that under the Bill the Government do not think that ex-bus cleaners who have been elected by the people are superior to people appointed by the Minister—they may be estate agents, or from other professions — but at least an ex-bus cleaner will not have an indirect financial interest in what he is doing, whereas some of the members of the UDCs may have. It is breathtakingly amazing that a Government that screws local authorities are prepared to give almost unlimited budgets to UDCs. If a UDC fails to attract private money, the Government will underwrite it in the same way that they underwrote the BP share issue. The Government will look after their own.
  I found very disturbing what my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) said about the Government's intention to set up mini UDCs. What does that mean? It means that a mini UDC—planning powers are very important—can take decisions that go against the interests of the community and its elected representatives.
  Unfortunately, I had to leave the Chamber when my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) was making his speech. We were on the Front Bench when the London Docklands development corporation was set up by the Government. We were assured then that the residents of the area would be able not only to rent but to buy. I do not live in that area, but I have seen the advertisements in The Observer and in other newspapers, and I could not afford to live in it. Very few Members — certainly Labour Members — could afford to live there, let alone those members of the community whose parents, grandparents and great-grandparents have lived there. They are being driven out of the area by the yuppies who are buying all the properties. Is that an example of a development corporation? Is that what will happen with regard to mini UDCs?
  With regard to areas of dereliction, it is very easy for Conservative Members to point out that local authorities have done nothing about them. Are they saying that Labour councils are being malicious and will not develop an area? Are they saying that Labour councils are unaware of problems in their area, even though the councillors live there? The problem is that the Government will not give local councils the money to develop that derelict land. They screw them down by rate capping and other measures. The money will go not to elected representatives but to appointed development corporations.
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: The hon. Gentleman is talking about the lack of money for inner-city areas. He might like to reflect on the words of Councillor Rabbani, who is a Labour councillor on Birmingham city council. He criticised his own council members in these terms:
  "There is already enough money to solve Handsworth's problems, but it is being wasted"
  by the local council.
  Mr. Oakes: He is an elected representative and he is entitled to say that. He and his colleagues do not agree as to how that money should be spent.
  976
  The Bill is about the erosion of democracy. The Government believe that representatives should be appointed to do things, especially in areas that are politically unfavourable to them. That is what the Bill is about and what the Government are trying to do. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh let the cat out of the bag in his remarks about the chairman of a planning committee being an ex-bus cleaner.
  I have great regard for the Minister — we are both north-westerners — but when he says that expenditure can be controlled by the appropriation Act he is talking nonsense. The appropriation Bill is the measure on which we have an all-night sitting when we talk about anything under the sun. Nobody votes it down, because to do so would block all Government expenditure for a range of other matters.
  The Bill gives the Government economic power to do what they like for urban development corporations and al the same time screw down elected representatives on local councils regardless of their party. Many Conservative councillors, who are true democrats, bitterly oppose what the Government are doing.
  I do not believe that there will be a vote on the Bill. I hoped that there would be, because we should vote against it.
  6.47 pm
  Mr. Martin M. Brando-Bravo: I join hon. Members in complimenting my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) and Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) on two superb maiden speeches. On 12 June—when I was coming down from a blue cloud, having been re-elected—I felt sad at the loss of some very able colleagues. That sadness is at least softened by the quality of the class of '87.
  My hon. Friend the Minister said that this was a modest measure. If one judges a Bill by the number of its pages and clauses, this is indeed a modest measure. Its size belies its importance. The concept of the urban development corporation, whether it be mini or maxi, is one of the great motor ideas of this era. Its growing impact on urban regeneration cannot be under-estimated and we must encourage it all that we can.
  I acknowledge some of the faults that have been mentioned by hon. Members with regard to the showpiece UDC, the London Docklands development corporation. It is still a showpiece of which we can be proud, and it demonstrates what can be achieved against the warring factions of local authorities that, sadly, put parochial obstacles in the way of desired objectives.
  There is no point in the Opposition trying to persuade people that all was sweetness and light in that area of London and that the Opposition would have done this by themselves without a UDC. The reality for all to see is that that is not true. For docklands and for the whole of that area of London, the development corporation was a brilliant idea and is becoming an ever more obvious success.
  Not all UDCs are London ones, nor are they likely to be. Nevertheless, the principle is valid. We are debating the narrow point of financial limits and parliamentary control, but we must recognise the party political divide on the issue as to whether we should have development corporations at all. On 12 May, a Committee was dealing

  977
  with Tyne and Wear, the black country and the Teesside development. The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), who is an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, said:
  "We are entering a general election campaign. Why are we considering the order this morning? Why not wait until after the general election? Under the next Labour Government—we shall have a Labour Government by 12 June—there will be no need for such orders."
  The hon. Member for Jarrow was challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), who said that the hon. Member for Jarrow was saying that, should there be a Labour Government after 11 June, they would repeal the orders and scrap development corporations. In unequivocal terms, the hon. Member for Jarrow said yes.
  Mr. Boyes: The hon. Gentleman is being selective in his quotations from the official record of that Committee. The then Minister, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) asked if there was
  "now a clear commitment by the Opposition to abolish all urban development corporations in this country."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) said:
  "My hon. Friend who leads for the Opposition will answer that question when he catches your eye, Mr. Knox."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow said:
  "I also said that I do not speak for the Opposition. That is the job of my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes)."
  My hon. Friend stressed that again, when he said:
  "However, my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington speaks for the Opposition Front Bench."—[Official Report, Sixth Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c. 12 May 1987; c. 6–22.]
  My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow had every right to express, as have other hon. Members in Committee or in the House, a personal opinion. On three occasions in the Committee he recognised that I spoke for the Opposition. I made it clear then, as I have done in this debate, that the Labour party has no intention of winding up the urban development corporations immediately on taking power. I said then, as I said earlier in this debate, that when we come to power we will review all urban development corporations or quangos in exactly the same way as the Government have done with new town corporations and with many of their quangos.
  As I said, the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) is being highly selective in his quotations. I hope that he will be honourable enough to accept that I have given the position of the Labour party.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his speech; I doubt whether it could be classed as an intervention. I was not being selective. The hon. Gentleman is quite correct when he says that his hon. Friend was challenged on more than one occasion about his remarks. He then ducked the issue by saying that he was not the Front-Bench spokesman on this matter. The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) did not rise and unequivocally deny that statement by the hon. Member for Jarrow. Indeed, on the Floor of the House that day, when the Paymaster General was answering questions, I brought up the matter. The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington was present when I made it quite clear that our understanding in Committee was that the Labour party would abolish the urban
  978
  development corporations. Once again, that was not denied by the hon. Member for Jarrow or the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington or by any Opposition Member. My reading of the Official Report of proceedings in Committee and in the House is perfectly correct and fair.
  Those of us who had to suffer the speech by the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington will be forgiven for feeling uncertain about the Labour party's policy on this matter. The hon. Gentleman has fudged the issue by saying that a Labour Government would review the urban development corporations. Nothing that we have heard from the Opposition, either before the general election or since, shows that they are other than opposed to the principle of urban development corporations. We accept that such corporations remove some authority from local government. That is an inevitable consequence of setting up a UDC, and no one seeks to deny that. We hope that there will be co-operation between the UDCs and the local authorities, but we cannot deny that the UDCs take away some of the authority of local government.
  The stated objective of UDCs is to secure the physical, social and economic regeneration of their areas with—I place special emphasis on this—"the maximum amount of private investment."
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: The statute says: "The object of an urban development corporation shall be to secure the regeneration of its area."
  That does not include the word "social", although I moved in Committee that that word should be included. If the statute included that word, its history would be very different. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept this statutory correction from section 136(1) of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I accept that that is what the statute says, but the hon. Gentleman will agree that its main thrust is to ensure that there is a mix of public and private capital. We want the maximum amount of private capital to come in with the UDC in order to give maximum benefit to all concerned. That is the matter that divides the House.
  Mr. Boyes: Was the hon. Gentleman in the House when I spoke?
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I was, and I listened to everything that the hon. Gentleman said. I grant that the Labour party in the city of Nottingham has certainly not been dogmatic, because it has welcomed the mix of private and public money. The money was in respect of urban development grants, and we have had a multiple of about 5:1 of private money coming in to mix with public money. That has been an excellent development for our city. But the willingness to mix public and private capital is not universal within the Labour party. Indeed, there is a growing body of opinion in the Labour party in Nottingham and its surrounding area that believes that public money only should be involved, and it wants nothing to do with private capital. That attitude does not seem to put the emphasis on the necessary priorities—what is good for our cities up and down the country.
  Mr. Frank Field: I apologise, as I am obviously going to bore the House on this point, but in my constituency it is difficult even to get the public money. I shall be grateful when someone on the Conservative Benches

  979
  addresses himself to that problem. My hon. Friends have already raised the effective point that local authorities lose power to the new corporations, but it appears that the Government Front Bench also have difficulty regarding what some of those bodies do.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The hon. Gentleman has made that intervention five times this afternoon. He is such a nice fellow that I cannot understand why the Government have not responded more favourably to his representation. The hon. Gentleman speaks well on behalf of his constituency, and I am sorry if he has not been successful.
  I am the first to admit that my city was Labour-controlled until May of this year. The city sought public money, when available, and put it together with private money, and it has been extremely successful. Indeed, in the past three years 1 believe that £30 million-worth of development has taken place in our city as a result of that co-operation. However, I am afraid that that is not true of all local authorities. If those authorities take the view that they do not want private development in their areas, the gearing that I have described is lost and much of the regeneration that we believe should take place simply does not occur.
  My hon. Friends have suggested that some authorities give the appearance of having a vested interest in misery. They will rest content with the dereliction and deprivation that may exist in their areas because they fear that, if those conditions are ever put right and the area becomes prosperous, its political complexion will be changed. That may or may not be true, but, as I drive around the country, the evidence before my eyes sadly suggests that there is more than an element of truth in that suggestion.
  One thing is clear: if the public hold the Government of the day responsible for the regeneration of our towns and cities and the Government of the day find themselves thwarted by local authorities, for whatever reason, that Government are entitled to say, "If we are going to get the blame for inaction, we have the perfect right to take powers to see that what has to be done is done, even if that means going over the head of a local authority that, for whatever reason, has blocked the way." As a Government, we cannot be expected to carry the can for dereliction if a local authority wants to claim the absolute right to refuse to allow us to deliver the regeneration that we were elected to bring about.
  The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) made an extremely valid point about the availability and value of land. I hope that my senior colleagues on the Front Bench will give some time to that matter. All of us, in our local authorities, must have come across the situation where a private owner sits tight on a bit of land because he knows that the value of a retail development will be much higher than an ordinary factory development. Therefore, he will not release that land until, somehow or other, he can generate that retail development.
  Similarly, and sadly, some of our statutory undertakings, such as British Rail and the Central Electricity Generating Board, hold on to their land. I acknowledge that they want the best value for the land that they hold, hut, in a sense, they hold that public land in trust for the benefit of the community. We must find a way of forcing those statutory undertakings to put that land on the market at a reasonable price for the benefit of the
  980
  community. They should not sit tight, acting as a kind of land bank for the future, in the hope of finding a handsome retail consortium to develop that land.
  I believe that when the operation of the UDCs involves more than one local authority, it is an ideal mechanism. We have the perfect right to establish a mini corporation if a local authority has not undertaken the necessary regeneration.
  In May this year, the city of Nottingham — part of which I represent — came under Conservative control after eight years of Labour control, albeit by just one seat, but that is enough, as they say. There has been and is a real desire to co-operate and encourage the involvement of the private sector. The city has selected David White — I hope I shall not embarrass him by describing him as a captain of industry — to be chief executive of a Nottingham enterprise initiative. When a local authority is seen to be co-operating with the private sector and making absolutely certain that it is doing everything that the present Government would wish it to do, I hope that it will not be denied public funds for those enterprises just because it is getting on with it. I hope that those public funds will go not just to those towns and cities that will not co-operate and hence need a mini UDC.
  In conclusion, I issue a challenge to the Opposition Front Bench. I listened to the speeches in Committee when we dealt with three corporations. Then the Opposition attitude was, to say the least, extremely woolly. Even today, the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington has vaguely said that they will look again at these corporations. However, the reality is that, unless and until the Labour party can return those corporations solely to the control of a local authority, it will not be content. It is ideologically opposed to the concept of the UDCs. I believe that the Labour party should have the courage to be honest about this, instead of trying to hide behind woolly words.
  7.8 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: I can tell the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) that I am much opposed to UDCs and have been since 1980. I am especially opposed to the existence of the London Docklands development corporation. During the course of a fairly short contribution, I hope to explain to the hon. Gentleman exactly why I take that attitude.
  The Government have given UDCs an extremely privileged status. That is in stark contrast to the way in which the Government have treated local authorities in this country, and certainly those in the east end. We in the east end do not like the LDDC because it is not accountable to the people of the east end. It is creating developments in that part of London that do not meet the needs or the wishes of the local people, and the people of the east end have no way of influencing or determining the policy decisions of the LDDC. To that extent, this is an ideological objection. Labour Members happen to believe in democratic accountability, but we cannot get that from the LDDC.
  The amount of power given to UDCs is enormous. For example, the LDDC managed to acquire 1,000 acres in the boroughs of Newham and Tower Hamlets in its first year of existence. It just moved in and took the land over, and neither the local authority nor anyone else had any right of appeal. Contrast that with the procedures through which a local authority must go if it wants to introduce a

  981
  compulsory purchase order. We know exactly what happens. Such authorities are held up and eventually stopped because of the ideological objections of Conservative Ministers to Labour local authorities going in for compulsory purchase. But if it is a UDC, such as the LDDC, made up of hand-picked Tory stooges, such bodies can move in and take things over straight away.
  Ms. Mildred Gordon: Is my hon. Friend aware that the massive development at Canary Wharf received LDDC planning permission in only two weeks? I understand that the new developers today held a press conference about which I was not informed and to which I was not invited, although I am the elected representative for the area. The LDDC is a fiefdom. There is no consultation whatever. That is disgraceful and points to the truth of what my hon. Friend has just said.
  Mr. Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend — [Interruption.] The Minister should not laugh. My hon. Friend makes a serious point because she speaks as one of the elected representatives of the area. The fact that she has been totally ignored is indicative of the way in which the LDDC treats elected representatives. Yet the Minister sits there looking the epitome of tonsorial artistry. I get sea sick looking at the waves in his hair. He should not laugh, because that is one of our major objections to the LDDC and to UDCs generally. They are not accountable, and take no account of the interests, wishes or needs of the local inhabitants.
  The LDDC stole Newham's land which could have been used for housing the homeless of the borough—assuming, of course that the Government would have allowed the borough to build any homes. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said that Tower Hamlets was in no position to build any homes at present. It is very easy to say that the LDDC is doing a wonderful job, but the Government are preventing local authorities from building the homes that they need on land that could have been theirs.
  It is no mere coincidence that homelessness in London has doubled since 1979, given that the Government have cut by 50 per cent. the funds available for housing investment. There is a correlation between the two. It is therefore dead easy to praise the LDDC for building, because it has been given a wonderful cash bonanza by the Government which has not been accompanied by any planning requirements or accountability whatever. Any fool could make a success with terms of reference such as that, even the fools on the Conservative Benches.
  Let us look more closely at some of the aspects of the LDDC. An undertaking was given to provide houses for renting and for sale at affordable prices. The LDDC has done nothing of the sort. Although it gave a commitment to the House of Lords to provide 50 per cent. of housing at affordable rents or prices, only 15 per cent. falls into the LDDC category of "affordable". In LDDC terms, that means prices of less than £40,000. However, there are not many such properties in docklands, as anyone can see if he reads the poncy newspaper advertisements that extol the virtues of housing developments. They are all called something fancy to attract the yuppies to the east end, who move in and take the houses that should be available for the people of Newham, Tower Hamlets and Southwark.
  982
  Surveys in our borough have shown that 75 per cent. of Newham households in the LDDC catchment area have incomes of less than £10,500 a year and that 75 per cent. of those in Tower Hamlets have incomes of less than £8,500 a year. At that level of household income, mortgages of even £25,000 are barely affordable. Let us hear no more rubbish from Conservative Members about affordable houses. The people of Newham and Tower Hamlets cannot afford such prices. They do not have the income, and the unemployed stand no chance whatever.
  Therefore, the LDDC is not providing the housing for the people of Newham, Tower Hamlets and Southwark, nor is it providing the jobs. We have heard some statistics, and I shall give some more. According to answers that we have received to parliamentary questions, 2,838 new jobs were created in docklands between 1981 and 1987 and 5,059 jobs transferred to docklands, but, according to the LDDC itself, during the same period some 7,000 jobs have been lost through closures and cuts. The reason for such closures and cuts is that the LDDC has been forcing some of the so-called unsuitable firms to close down because of compulsory purchase of their premises or of the land on which they are sited.
  Indeed, the jobs that the LDDC has been able to create do not match the skills that the people of my borough possess. It should be remembered that the LDDC is located in an area in which, in the 1960s, provided some 60,000 jobs in the docks. Many of those jobs were unskilled or semi-skilled, but the jobs that the LDDC is providing do not meet the needs of the large number of unskilled and semi-skilled people who live in Newham. The Government and the LDDC should therefore undertake massive retraining exercises in the area so that when high-tech jobs are created the people of Newham will have a chance of getting them. Even so, such jobs will not be on the scale required, given the level of unemployment and the mismatch of skills in the London borough of Newham.
  My last point, like my first, relates to the ideological objection. Labour Members think that UDCs are profoundly undemocratic. In no sense whatever are they accountable either to the local people who live in the area or to Parliament. It is nonsense to suggest that we have an opportunity to debate the affairs of the UDCs and to exercise control over their management. We have no such power, and the Minister decieves himself, even if he does not decieve the House, if he believes that to be so.
  I have tabled dozens of questions about the LDDC, and the reply to many of them is that it is a matter for the LDDC itself. We cannot hold the LDDC to account in any practical sense. Its meetings are held largely in secret. It does not issue minutes. The press and public are not allowed into the meetings so that they can report what goes on. They must rely on a sort of No.10-type lobby briefing afterwards. Therefore, there is no way of holding UDCs to account. Would any Conservative Member tolerate such an attitude from any local authority in the country, be it Tory or Labour?
  Here we see the difference in treatment between a UDC and a local authority. Whatever we may think about the local authorities, ultimately they are accountable to the people through the ballot box. If the people do not like what the local authorities are doing, at least they have the opportunity of getting rid of them in an election. The Minister could make a few friends on the Opposition Benches if he held elections for urban development

  983
  corporations. At least they would then be subject to the rigours and requirements of the ballot box. I doubt whether he will do that.
  Urban development corporations are what the future of local government is all about. We know what is going on on the Government Benches. This evening, Conservative Members have said—certainly, in the past, Ministers have said so—that they would like to replace local authority functions by urban development corporation-type machinery. In other words, inner cities would, in effect, be organised and administered by Tory business men.
  That is what it is all about. That is why additional funds are going into urban development corporations: so that they can continue to extend their power throughout inner cities, give them enormous privileged status, give them vast sums—sums that local authorities can only dream about—subject them to no democratic accountability, and then say, "What a wonderful job they are doing." As I said, any fool can make a success of an area in those circumstances.
  I look forward to the day, as all Opposition Members do, when we have a Labour Government. [Interruption.] That would hardly come as a surprise to Conservative Members. Opposition Members would hardly be sitting here looking forward to the day when a Conservative Government were re-elected. One of the first things that I hope that a Labour Government will do is to get rid of the London Docklands development corporation and restore the assets and the land to the people of the east end which, on their behalf, will be exercised by their democratically elected local council. I look forward with great relish to that day.
  7.21 pm
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) and for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) on making their maiden speeches. In particular, I single out my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South, who will a worthy heir to his predecessors.
  I welcome the extension of the financial powers which the Bill gives to urban development corporations. As a west midlands hon. Member and currently a member of the Birmingham city council, I have no doubt that, in areas of the greatest dereliction, urban development corporations are the most effective way of harnessing the energies of inner-city people, of co-ordinating central and local government initiatives, and of attracting private sector investment, thereby speeding up the revival of enterprise and drive that made our cities the growth areas that they once were.
  Most people who have an interest in inner cities are beginning to recognise the value of urban development corporations. That may even extend to the Labour party. Although the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), said that, in principle, in the unlikely event that the Labour party returns to government, he is prepared to look at urban development corporations and review them, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) totally objects to them in principle. That is another example of the Labour party's unity of purpose.
  984
  However, more sensible people who are concerned about inner cities support urban development corporations. Indeed, in July, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment told us that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said:
  "The Alliance believe that UDCs can do a very useful job. We shall seek to work closely with them."
  That hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), the Opposition's housing spokesman, said:
  "We hope that the urban development corporations will be a success. Setting them up is not an attack on local government."
  It was reported in the Financial Times on 28 March this year that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) urged the Government to use the Merseyside development corporation as a conduit for Government grant aid to Liverpool.
  More important than that, the more sensible local authorities, of all political persuasions, are beginning to support urban development corporations. One cannot expect that of the more ideological London boroughs such as Southwark, which has 3,850 empty council properties because it cannot collect £27 million-worth of rent, or Waltham Forest, which closed down a community training programme which, in its words, concealed the true level of unemployment. But, elsewhere, more sensible authorities such as Birmingham, which sadly, at the moment, is under Labour control, Dudley, and, as we were told earlier, Trafford Park, which is near Manchester, have shown a willingness to work with the Government and the EEC to attract private investment to derelict city areas.
  Indeed, it is interesting to note that the document entitled "Birmingham City Partnership Annual Review for 1987" states that what is needed for inner cities is precisely the kind of targeted investment and attraction of private investment through business employment schemes that characterises urban development corporations. So convinced are the authors of that view that the Labour Birmingham city council, in Aston, Nechells and Washwood Heath, is busy setting up an urban development association which will have all the characteristics of an urban development corporation, except the compulsory purchase and planning powers. It is quite understandable why they take such a view, having seen the success and potential of urban development corporations in other areas.
  We have heard arguments that the docklands comprise a special case. The docklands comprised total and absolute dereliction. Despite that, as a result of the London Docklands development corporation, we have seen no less——
  Mr. Spearing: As half my constituency is in docklands, will the hon. Gentleman kindly withdraw the remark or at least suspend it until I have been shown the facts? It is not true to say that docklands was totally derelict. A lot of it was Port of London Authority dockland which was abandoned, but it was not derelict.
  Mr. Coombs: Nevertheless, it is true that, since the advent of the London Docklands development corporation, no less than £2 billion of private investment has gone into the area. It did not go into that area before. Recently it was interesting to see that the London borough of Newham has dropped its opposition to the extension of the royal docks through the development corporation. In Liverpool, we see £60 million-worth of private investment

  985
  and 94 per cent. of contracts going to local firms. In Tyneside, there are projections of 6,500 extra jobs, and on Teesside there are projections of 3,000 jobs. Independent assessments of the black country development corporation estimate that, over the next 10 years, with Government investment of about £130 million, no less than £500 million of private investment will be injected into a previously derelict area. Independent consultants regard that estimate as conservative and say that the amount could be as much as £1 billion. Therefore, in a practical way, these people recognise the potential of urban development corporations to act as catalysts to unlock private sector cash and free enterprise in inner cities.
  That potential is enormous, but if it is fully to be realised, there are two respects in which urban development corporations and mini urban development corporations have a part to play. The first relates to coordination. Everybody will agree that there is an enormous variety of schemes with different sponsors and, often, different aims.
  Overall, the task forces report to the Department of Trade and Industry but are headed by different Government Departments in different respects. The city action teams report to the Department of Trade and Industry, enterprise workshops go to local councils, partnership programmes are responsible to local councils and the Department of the Environment, training programmes are with the Manpower Services Commission, and enterprise agencies are very often the products of voluntary organisations such as Business in the Community and the Industrial Society. As to the Government initiatives, there are some five major block schemes in the Department of the Environment, 32 schemes in the Department of Employment and 64 schemes in the Department of Trade and Industry. I am not criticising the variety of those schemes. Their variety responds to local considerations and local conditions in various parts of the country.
  I appreciate that larger companies have the resources to lock into the schemes that are right for individual areas. National Westminster bank spends 1 per cent. of its pretax profits on community schemes and Shell, IBM and British Petroleum are involved with the London enterprise agency.
  There is no doubt that the contributions of small and medium-sized firms could be greater if they had a conduit through which they could get into what they regard as a maze of schemes. It should be a function of the urban development corporations to act as points of contact and co-ordination so that medium-sized and smaller companies could make any contributions that they wish. The urban development corporations should be able to be the conduits whereby incentive is given to small and medium-sized firms to channel their energies into the inner cities.
  The incentives I have in mind are tax allowances and accelerated write-offs for investment in inner-city areas in training, research and development and new enterprise. This approach has been used successfully in some states of America and in regard to training, it would be only part of wider strategies to promote training in private industry, sadly, on an industrial firm basis. Expenditure on training per year in this country varies between one third and one twelfth of that of our foreign competitors. As we heard earlier this week, the "Engineering Vacancies Directory"
  986
  referred to 7,600 jobs being unfilled because of lack of skills. I take the hon. Gentleman's point that there are inner-city residents who need such training. If we give medium-sized and small companies incentives through tax allowances to provide training, those areas will improve.
  The tax allowance approach could be extended to the construction of factory units, and to larger companies investing in smaller companies through the use of corporate venturing, which generally, in the countries that use it, has had a good effect on research and development.
  I am aware from the Estates Gazette last week that Lord Young is against tax allowances. He said that they distort the market, and I appreciate that argument. However, in some urban development corporations, particularly in Bilston in the west midlands, even the anticipated rents, when buildings are built, are between £2·50 and £3 a square foot. The flow of private capital needs to be speeded up because the rate of return would otherwise be marginal to the private investor. The best way in which to do that would be through tax allowances. I must stress, however, that these are merely improvements that could be made to the urban development corporation strategy, which is basically sound.
  I conclude by congratulating the Government, first on having the foresight to set up the urban development corporations in 1981; secondly, on having the guts to extend them now, and on their proposals for mini urban development corporations, which are extremely valuable; and, thirdly, on backing them with the necessary cash, both through this Bill and through the Chancellor's Autumn Statement. Yesterday we heard that an extra £65 million will be spent on urban development corporations. That demonstrates practically the Government's basic and strong commitment to the revival of enterprise and prosperity in our inner cities.
  7.35 pm
  Mr. Paul Murphy: I am glad to add a Welsh dimension to the debate. I remind the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) that it was Labour, not a Conservative Administration, who introduced urban development corporations.
  I am glad to see the Under-Secretary of State for Wales on the Government Front Bench because within the next two years the question of urban development corporations will be of concern to Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) will have a new UDC in his constituency, while my constituency of Torfaen had, for 30 years, the only new town development corporation in the Principality of Wales.
  It is important that Conservative Members realise that, during the past 30 years, the Opposition have been appreciative of the work of the corporations. They have housed millions of people, created new industry, brought in wealth and created large commercial and industrial centres. However, at the same time they have created a paradox because those who came to work in the new industries generated in the new towns often came from the inner cities.
  Earlier in the debate reference was made to John Silkin. I recall a meeting in Harlow new town many years ago, when he was the Minister responsible for new towns, at which he compared Harlow with his constituency in the London docklands. It is that paradox that has, in a sense,

  987
  sucked out from the inner cities the prosperity and wealth that it was necessary to develop in the satellite towns around London and elsewhere.
  As we are now considering the corporations in a different light, the Government must take note of the mistakes of the past 30 years. The biggest mistake was clearly in the way that those corporations were organised. It was never the intention of the 1940s Labour Government for corporations to develop the towns and then continue to run them. The essence of the corporations then, as opposed to today, was the intention to hand over all of the assets to local authorities. Unfortunately, both Labour and Conservative Governments have reneged on that pledge. All that was offered to the local authorities were the houses. The assets—rather than the liabilities—such as the factories, industrial estates and town centres were, if not privatised, handed to nominated bodies. In England, that was the Commission for the New Towns and in Wales it was the Welsh Development Agency and the Land Authority for Wales. Yet that was never the intention of the original Act.
  The framers of this Bill should have asked for the advice of the Association of District Councils new towns committee, on which I served for some years. It was composed of Conservative and Labour members, who were at one in saying that it was wrong for new towns not to be handed to local authorities to be democratically run. During those 30 years, there was a sort of municipal schizophrenia in the new towns. The people did not know who was responsible for what. Even worse, the corporations were run by appointed people who often did not live in the towns, but were appointed because they came from the list of the good and the great. That was wrong. Consequently, the local authorities and the corporations were often at loggerheads.
  I am concerned that, under the Bill, the same mistakes could be made. I remind the Under-Secretary of State for Wales that in the town of Cwmbran the corporation will be wound up in a few months and the Welsh Development Agency will look after the industry. There is an unhealthy concentration of power and influence in the hands of a few individuals in the corporations, and it is wrong that that should be continued, whether in Wales, England or anywhere else.
  I know from experience over the past couple of decades that if the corporations are to be a success, they must work closely with local authorities and have upon their boards people who live in the towns and know the local problems. If they do not, they will be doomed. I am convinced that the corporations will not do that and that they are nothing more than a sop to the most deprived areas of our land.
  7.41 pm
  Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: I wish to clarify one or two points. I must declare an interest because since coming to the House in 1979 I have been joint chairman of the Conservative urban affairs and inner city committee, which has taken a non-stop look at docklands since its inception. The committee has made dozens of visits to docklands and met the various chairmen and chief executives of the London Docklands development corporation. It has heard from them about the remarkable contribution made by, for example, Bob Mellish, who is vice-chairman of the LDDC's board and
  988
  who was a Labour Member of Parliament. He knows the area a great deal better than does the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) who is grimacing.
  For several years, both under a Labour and then a Conservative administration on Birmingham city council, I served on the inner-city partnership. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said that one of the failures of the terms of reference of the UDCs was that they did not include a social reference. However, it was that very term of reference to the inner-city partnership that created an imbalance from the start and resulted in some social work being done but no real infrastructure being provided.
  All in all, I do not consider that the Brothers Newham—not the Brothers Grimm—have made too much of an impact tonight. Although I am one of those who is called a fool, it is about as important to be called a fool by a ranter as it is to be called irrational by a certified psychiatrist. Furthermore, their speeches have clearly shown the very divisions between local authority and corporation workings that impede the progress that could be made. Such speeches defy, probably well into the next century and perhaps the next millenium, the advent of the Labour Government for whom they so dearly wish.
  Mr. Tony Banks rose——
  Mr. Bevan: I will not grant the hon. Gentleman time. because he has already had a great deal of time, during which he gave out many expletives and was generous with his adjectival descriptions. Perhaps it is time that he took some of them for a moment or two.
  I welcome the Government's initiatives and praise the manner in which they were introduced by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who has grasped the importance or his portfolio so quickly and injected into it the dynamism which he showed in the tourism portfolio. Indeed, I hope to develop the theme of the importance of tourism in urban redevelopment. Deprivation of urban areas accumulated over many years under the previous Administration. They were littered with good intentions but little else. Many documents were produced, but there was not much action. The result was the squalid condition in the docklands area along the banks of the Thames and not far from the House. I shall repeat figures that I gave in an earlier intervention. Under this Government, in docklands 12,000 houses were built on LDDC land or ex-Port of London Authority land in Tower Hamlets and parts of Newham. Of those properties, 60 per cent. were sold at under £40,000 and were readily available.
  Ms. Gordon: Rubbish.
  Mr. Bevan: I point out to the hon. Lady that 40 per cent. of those houses were bought by residents of the three boroughs to which reference has been made.
  We have seen the progress that has been made. Again, I must declare an interest. Until I came to Parliament I practised as a valuer and surveyor concerned with both residential and commercial development. I cannot carry out that work now, but I make that point lest I am accused of having an interest. I am proud to have had an interest in the past and in having chaired two professional bodies.
  The Government have had to tackle this matter because of the inability of local authorities to find an answer. I speak as a west midlander who not only served on Birmingham city council for many years but held the

  989
  transport portfolio for the West Midlands county council. Therefore, I think I am entitled to comment on these matters. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) nodding in agreement. I welcome him to the debate.
  Deprivation was exacerbated under the previous Administration. The policy of the Board of Trade under Sir Stafford Cripps was that in urban areas such as the west midlands not one brick should be laid on another to build structures of over 5,000 sq ft. Assisted area status was wrongly granted to other areas. Strong areas such as the west midlands were weakened by the Labour Government's policy. That has been put right because of the campaign that I and other hon. Members on both sides of the House waged for intermediate area status to be given to the west midlands.
  This legislation is another example of the Government putting forward proposals to make progress which regrettably was not made previously. The Government have found that one essential ingredient is co-operation between private and public enterprise. Members of the Conservative parliamentary tourism committee, which I chair, went at no public expense to study inner-city conditions in America. We wanted to be able to plead the case for urban renewal and for tourism and to learn. My colleagues and I saw the success that the Americans achieved in the Baltimore inner port area which had been dynamically redeveloped. That provided a lesson which could be readily understood by the rest of the world.
  Mr. George Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the significant factor about those developments on the eastern seaboard was the substantial amount of Government-led expenditure, particularly in the industries that have been located there and have blossomed?
  Mr. Bevan: The expenditure was initiated by the local board although it was partially Government expenditure. That is the very proposal that we are debating—that the threshold of Government expenditure should be increased. That is on the front of the Bill. We have seen the caring attitude of the Government. For each pound of Government expenditure in London, £9 has been generated in London. That policy has been successful. We have seen infrastructure spring up along the Thames. What started as lots of pepperpots has developed into something greater. The corporation is to be thanked for that. Housing has been developed not only in Surrey docks but in the Isle of Dogs and in Tower Hamlets. Communications are keeping pace with development. The Docklands light railway is one example. The stolport has been developed. That is not to be denigrated but appreciated.
  We note also the success of the other urban development corporation in Liverpool, although I am the first to concede that it has not been such a success as London Docklands. About £136 million of Government money was spent on a garden festival in the first instance, in the redevelopment of Albert dock, and Wapping warehouse is being converted into flats, but there is still much derelict land to be cleared between the City and the Albert docks, which stands on its own, rather like a far outpost of Liverpool itself.
  The Black Country urban development corporation, which was created on 15 May, will deal with no less than
  990
  2,345 hectares. I have only just become used to acres and yards, instead of rods, poles and perches, and must now translate these terms into hectares. For those who, like me, are slow in the uptake of such matters, a hectare is about 2·471 acres, so, if we multiply the hectare figure by 2·5, we will see that the area to be dealt with in the black country is about 5,860 acres. That vast area of land to be affected by industrial and new activities sees the UDC already well established and stretches from junction 10 on the M6 in the north to junction two on the M5 in the south. A new zone has been successfully created in that chunk of land, which is the heart of England.
  The gearing will be about 4: 1. That is not as successful as in London, but each £1 of Government money will create about £4 from the private sector, if we are wise enough to adopt these proposals. The UDC will deal with an investment of about £130 million over 10 years and will create no fewer than 18,400 new jobs.
  We have heard some excellent and succinct speeches in the debate. I join the praise for the maiden speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) and for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin). Their speeches were worthy of the House and augur well. I also wish to commend the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs), who has been a Birmingham city councillor and knows about these matters. He, too, has expressed the views of the west midlands.
  I wish to give an interim report on the success of the Black Country UDC. It has got under way successfully and has been much acclaimed by all the interested parties. It is already creating interest in an area which needs major rejuvenation. Many national organisations have expressed their interest, including Trafalgar House. Is it a coincidence that the first chairman of the LDDC is also the chairman of Trafalgar House? This and other great companies are investing in the future of these areas and in the regeneration of our country.
  The Black Country UDC has so much to offer. There is a highly experienced work force in the west midlands with adaptable skills. There are hundreds of businesses in and around the area providing supplies and services and, within a radius of 30 miles, there is a population of about 5 million.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has just entered the Chamber. He is my co-chairman of the urban affairs and new towns committee and he can contribute much to the debate. Having assisted him in the creation of his book "A New Life for Old Cities", I know that he could spell out the further objectives that we should have in the west midlands. Not only must UDCs have the power of planning, land assembly, granting of planning permission, land clearance and the building of new roads, but they must be allowed to grant even more concessions. Tax-exempt bonds would draw even more investment into our area.
  If urban development corporations are to succeed, local authorities must not artificially hoist land values to historical values. Sometimes, land owned by a statutory undertaking has little value. Some land has negative value and some land nil value. Former gas works land might need to be sweetened and reclaimed and would have a nil or even negative value.
  In 1983, my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams and I and others persuaded the Government to initiate a register of derelict land. For the first time, we had a record

  991
  of the amount of unused land in our cities which should be put to work. But about 100,000 acres of that land is still undeveloped. Perhaps there are good reasons for that. The configurations may be wrong, as in the case of land next to railway lines. Many of us believe that now is the time to carry our successful programme of privatisation a little further and privatise unused public sector land which has not been brought into beneficial use. I should be very gratified if the money that we will vote tonight would help us to use that land in the great task of regenerating our urban areas.
  It is good news that the Government are doing a job which was not done by the squabbling local authorities — [HON. MEMBERS: "Untrue."] it is true, and hon. Members know it. Methinks they do protest too much. If local authorities cannot agree or will not get a move on, the Government can now create mini urban development corporations—this is what the Opposition do not like—with powers for land assembly, clearance, redevelopment and refurbishment. This is another important aspect of the Government's policy.
  Finally—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that what I am saying meets with acclaim from the Opposition.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Only the word "finally".
  Mr. Bevan: The Secretary of State is no doctrinal man in this area, as are some Opposition Members who can think only in outdated local authority terms. I was there when the leader of the Conservative party on Birmingham city council, Sir Neville Bosworth, and the Labour leader, Dick Knowles, appealed to the Secretary of State saying, "We want to redevelop and refurbish an area in east Birmingham, but we do not think the only answer is an urban development corporation. We would like an urban development authority for this area." The Government thought about it and the Secretary of State was good enough to say, "You shall have your urban development authority, which will be controlled mainly by the local authority, but which will also involve great public companies and small private companies."
  I plead with the Government, who, in their wisdom, conceded the creation of that authority, to ensure that there is no great disparity between the authority and the urban development corporations in terms of powers or amounts of money. The authority must be allowed to prove its success, just as the urban development corporations continue to prove the success of the Government in tackling the problems of the residual tips of the past.
  I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to support the Bill.
  8.7 pm
  Mr. Dennis Turner: I was sorry to hear the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) say what he did about local government. As chairman of transport in the west midlands, he developed a transport programme for the region. It is sad when an hon. Member castigates local government after he has made a great contribution to it. There is an element of politicking in this and a sense of unreality about the issues that must be faced.
  So that it is not overlooked, may I put on record our thanks and appreciation for the work done for some years
  992
  by four authorities—Walsall, Wolverhampton, Dudley and Sandwell—in regenerating the black country. Those four authorities, of different political colours, have worked together. They are a credit to the way in which we expect people to work together in a community that has been decimated by the past eight years of economic recession. Ministers will ignore these communities at the peril of their own communities if they do not recognise the worth or such local authorities, which have worked with the chambers of commerce and the Confederation of British Industry in the black country on projects to rejuvenate the community.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) is not present. His speech was most unfair and uncharitable. It must be true: with friends like that, who needs enemies? His contribution was a disgrace and he brought great disdain on himself. His comments on the Labour-controlled authorities and the Labour representatives of the north-east and north-west were also a disgrace. I hope that his constituents will reflect on what he said and wonder about the calibre of their representative. I am of a mild disposition and an affable person; I try to go through life making friends; but I must say that the hon. Gentleman's contribution was underwhelming.
  I am not going to say that I do not wish for progress, or that I hold in ill regard the people who have been appointed to serve on the Black Country urban development corporation, because a massive and major job needs to be done. However, unless the Government take account of the role of local government in that exercise—I know that representations are being made to the board—and reach out far more expansively and meaningfully to local government, I am afraid that the experiment will fail.
  I have already said that we in the black country have a good reputation for working together. We work across the political divide, with industry and commerce, to try to uplift our community. It is imperative that that team is kept together and that the special relationship that exists between the four black country boroughs and Birmingham is maintained. I hope that the Minister will seek to continue to develop and harness the good will and expertise that exists in those boroughs so that we can make the progress that we wish.
  I worry about the reason for this new development as it ignores the existing democratic input of local government. I know that this is a political point that will be challenged, but we have suffered continued reductions in the rate support grant during the past few years because the Government believe that there has been wasteful expenditure, that local government has not progressed as it should, has not been fully accountable or has not done its job properly. All those arguments have been advanced as the reason for reducing the rate support grant to local government. We know—because it is on record and a fact—that whereas in the 1970s we gave 63 per cent. of the national Exchequer contributions to local government, that figure is now 44 or 45 per cent. The amount of money that would have gone to Wolverhampton if that rate support contribution had flowed into its coffers over that period has been identified as about £60 million. That should be related to the amount that is being ploughed in to the Black Country urban development corporation. My figures relate to one authority only, but the corporation will span four or more local authorities. If we put together

  993
  cumulatively the amount of money that has been withdrawn from local government and compare it with the money that will be given to the new corporation, it is easy to see what we could have done had the resources been available.
  I know that this will be challenged, but I wish to give my view of the disdain that has been shown for local government by the Prime Minister and the Government. That disdain borders on the unhealthy. A month or so ago, the Prime Minister visited my constituency, but she almost ignored the civic status of my local authority. Only 10 minutes were given to the leader of that council. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) spoke during education questions yesterday about the need for a city technology college in Wolverhampton. The local authority is now Conservative controlled for the first time in 17 years and we have a Conservative mayor.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Bravo.
  Mr. Turner: The hon. Gentleman says, "Bravo."
  I concede that the Prime Minister had a busy programme, but she never found the time even to meet and receive the mayor of our borough. That was not regarded favourably, and I do not need to explain why. That seems to underline——
  Mr. Spearing: It typifies the Government's approach.
  Mr. Turner: Indeed. It typifies the Government's approach because they seek to undermine and ignore local government. All hon. Members will recognise the great benefits and contributions that they receive from local government and local authorities. We must all concede that civic pride is vital to our communities.
  I wrote to the Prime Minister to ask why she could not take the time to give due and proper civic status and recognition to our authority. She visited a shop called "The Complete Lady" in my constituency. Some members of my local community would not necessarily ascribe that title to the Prime Minister. However, I am told that she bought a lovely handbag and two hatpins. I understand that the handbag cost £40. About 25 per cent. of the people in my constituency are unemployed and receive what is now called "income support" from the DHSS. Those people suffer great difficulties and deprivations, and they must wonder how somebody could spend £40 on a handbag, when they receive that amount to keep mind and body together for a week. However, I must admit that the shop is a good little example of local enterprise. That is an example from the visit made by the Prime Minister to the new area, part of which will be the Black Country urban development corporation.
  The black country has things to offer, including its marvellous museum and the best real ale one can buy in the British Isles, and we are developing, through the West Midlands county council, consensus policies and strategic planning. The hon. Member for Yardley has contributed in no small way to the overall development of our transport policy. We have been exploring new ways of developing our economic infrastructure. One improvement which we regard as crucial to the redevelopment of the black country is the black country route. If the Minister wants to contribute to the black country's
  994
  redevelopment, after the job and industry losses over the past few years, I urge him to reject the application of British Coal's opencast executive for development and possible mining on the route of the new black country road network. The Minister will hear representations from the new development corporation and local authorities which will be as one in saying, "Please do not hold up the black country route because of anything that the opencast executive wants." If the application is accepted, many of the efforts which are expected to be made by the new black country urban development corporation will be wasted.
  Some progress will be made if there are meaningful working relationships with the local authorities. I would be the last to pour cold water on anything that will help to rejuvenate the community that I represent or the whole of the black country. I hope that working relationships will be allowed to develop at some stage and that more democracy will be built into local plans. Local people are sceptical about people who live away from the local community and may have no knowledge of it going on the new boards. Our problems can be solved only by people pulling together and contributing. The Government can help us by doing what is necessary to paint the economic backcloth and develop our community. The black country has taken knocks, but its people are no less resilient than people anywhere else in the world. I love them and am proud to represent them.
  It is important that we get the legislation right. We shall not vote against the Bill. We want to ensure that people work in harmony to get the groundwork right, not just for people today, but for those who have yet to come and live in the black country and have jobs, security and dignity.
  8.24 pm
  Mr. Michael Fallon: I should like to follow up some of the observations of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) about the relationship between local government and urban development corporations. He made the important point that that relationship must be right. If urban development corporations are to be a permanent feature of the political landscape, more thought and time need to be given to that relationship.
  No one could possibly accuse a Government who present a Bill of this kind of neglecting the inner cities. There will be a considerable increase in resources as a result of the Bill and yesterday's statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. It can no longer be said that the Government are in any way neglecting inner urban areas or the north-east. There are two urban development areas in the north-east, one on Tyne and Wear and the other on Teesside—plus a wide range of other supports. I have been told that some £700 million has been invested in the north-east since 1983. The UDCs typify the much more carefully targeted nature of Government support.
  The north-east has suffered more than any other region from a general blanket approach to its serious structural and social problems. There was regional aid, which was automatic and general and covered 96 per cent. of the north-east. There was rate support grant, spread by Labour-controlled local authorities in the north-east, universally benefiting everyone through extravagant subsidies of housing and transport. The great trick of the urban development corporations is that the resources which they apply are much more specific and carefully targeted than resources from other bodies.

  995
  Teesside development corporation is a good example, covering one of the larger areas covered by such corporations, but it is a specific geographical area, closely related to the riverside. Anyone who has studied the problems of the north-east knows that they are concentrated on the river areas. One must start by regenerating the rivers of Tyne, Wear and Tees, because that is where the older industries were concentrated and where the decay and dereliction of the old industrial landscape are greatest. That does not mean that a development corporation specifically concentrated on a small area of the river Tees does not bring benefits to a more general area. My constituents will benefit. They may find jobs in the factories that the UDC brings to Teesside. If the UDCs can do anything, they should be able to lift the north-east out of some of the more parochial envy that local authorities have demonstrated. It does not matter where a factory is located, provided that it is in the north-east or within the areas covered by other UDCs, rather than in Belgium, Ireland or Denmark. The factory should be here.
  The purposes of UDCs are specific. Unlike local authorities, they have a clear remit—to sweep away the old industrial landscape and debris of the past, physically to clear away the dying, decrepit factories and industrial sites and to renew that landscape by providing the buildings that will attract new investment. The geographical targeted area of an urban development corporation is as specific as its purpose.
  Perhaps most important of all, the development corporations will be much better spenders of public money than local authorities. They will be able to do what local authorities have signally failed to do, even where there were financial incentives for them to do so—to bring in private money in partnership with public money and apply it to the purposes of regeneration. I am thinking specifically of the north-east.
  Not only do UDCs attract private money to go alongside public money in generous proportions, but they give the taxpayer much better value for the public pound that is spent. If the urban development corporations are to become a permanent feature of the political landscape, and if my hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench are thinking of going further and establishing fresh UDCs — I have heard mini urban development corporations suggested — as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East implied, the Government will need to reconsider the relationship between the development corporations and the local authorities.
  Of course, it is wrong for Labour Members to say that a few million pounds more for the UDCs must be looked at in the context of the reductions that have taken place in rate support grant. That argument is nonsense, because the money that would have been allocated to rate support grant and local authorities if Opposition Members had had their way would have been spent in all the bad old ways—on subsidised council housing at ridiculously low rents, on council workers' overtime payments and on wasteful, extravagant local government services.
  Of course it is right such a transfer of money should take place. However, that does not mean that we do not have to consider the relationship between UDCs and local government. First, we must ensure that as the UDC takes over, begins to spend money and develop more and more of its functions, it does not add to the burden on local government, but paves the way for a reduction of that
  996
  burden. The Labour party has rightly suggested single-tier local authorities. At the beginning of this year, it was getting near to advocating the abolition of the shire counties and the concentration of their functions at the district level. One has only to look at Teesside to see the sheer folly of having a Teesside development corporation and a Cleveland county council — and three or four district councils as well.
  If the UDC is to be a permanent feature of Teesside, we must re-examine the need for Cleveland county council. Its functions merely duplicate what could be done at district authority level — because the area is predominantly urban — so there is no need for the extravagant bureaucracy and heavy-handedness of such a council, which has done little during the past seven or eight years except to discourage investment and business in Cleveland — with economic development units, and so on, producing a series of gloomy reports. I hope that when Mrs. Justice Butler-Sloss makes her recommendations at the end of the child abuse inquiry, she will recommend the abolition of Cleveland county council, so that there will be a clearer relationship with the Teesside development corporation refurbishing the industrial landscape and attracting fresh business into Teesside and the district councils getting on with the traditional functions of local government.
  There is, therefore, a corollary for my hon. Friend the Minister to consider. If Teesside and other development corporations are to exist for many years, my hon. Friend must examine the way in which he appoints local authority members to those boards. Of course, it may be right to begin by choosing a couple of leading Labour politicians, putting them on the board and evoking some enthusiasm for the development corporation concept by paying them £4,000 a year each. However, will the Minister for ever continue to appoint the same type of leader of a Labour local authority? Will he reappoint such a leader in each case? How do we select local authority representatives to serve on urban development corporations? Could not there be some slightly wider consultation process about the way in which those people are selected? The relationship between the development corporations and the district councils is centred on that membership.
  I shall deal next with the concomitant review of regional policy. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has moved from his former Department, which dealt with small businesses, to one that deals with larger ones. However, as the development corporations have a package of incentives to attract fresh investments to their areas, it is important to ensure that the other aid measures that are available from the other Department concerned—the Department of Trade and Industry—complement and do not overwhelm what the other corporations are doing. I hope that we shall soon hear how the review of regional support measures is proceeding and how the measures are to be properly tallied with what is available from the development corporations.
  In the meantime, we wish the urban development corporations well. They now have the physical resources, the finance, the skills—they are beginning to assemble the teams—and the leadership to set about their task. That task is not only the physical one of cleaning up the riverside and building new factories. It is also a psychological one. The corporations must not only sell their areas to the rest of the United Kingdom and the world, but must raise the level of self-confidence in their

  997
  areas. They must make people on Teesside believe again in what Teesside has to offer. Development corporations are ideally suited to this task. They have a clearly defined sense of purpose and direction, and, through this Bill, the resources to match that commitment.
  8.37 pm
  Miss Marjorie Mowlam: I want to respond to a couple of points made by the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon). To suggest, as he did, that the psychological atmosphere in Cleveland could be improved, and then to say that the child abuse inquiry should consider doing away with Cleveland county council, was irresponsible and flippant. The inquiry is a difficult, complex issue, about which one should not be flippant. The hon. Gentleman also suggested that Cleveland county council is bureaucratic and top-heavy. He seems to forget that it is an elected body, which the UDC certainly is not. that is an important distinction, and one that I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept.
  I agree with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) about the comments made by the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), who has now left the Chamber. It is a sad reflection on the Chamber that the hon. Gentleman should have made such comments about the leadership of Middlesbrough county council. Clearly, Mr. Carr has his doubts about the Teesside UDC and its ability to deliver for the people of Middlesbrough. However, when faced with another four years of Tory government, it is in his best interests to do what he can for the people there. So he is doing his best to co-operate and to deliver more jobs and a better existence for the people of Middlesbrough. To condemn him, as the hon. Member for Langbaurgh did, was disgusting.
  The hon. Member for Langbaurgh has the incredible ability to stab himself in the foot. After he had carried on about how inefficient and awful Labour authorities were, he went on to describe how the planning delays in a Tory-controlled authority went on for years. It is incredible that he should criticise our side, and then his own, in that way. It was interesting, too, that when the new hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) made his maiden speech, he failed to identify himself with his hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh.
  I shall keep my remarks short as there have been a number of excellent contributions from the Opposition Benches.
  The problems in Teesside—where, since 1979, 45,000 people have lost their jobs—mean that Teesside will welcome investment warily, but in the hope of regenerating and encouraging industrial development in the area. If, when he goes north, the Minister did not always fly over Redcar but sometimes stopped and visited it, he would see the advantages that it has to offer to industry. Not only do we have an attractive hinterland in the Cleveland hills, but we have good access by road, rail and river, as well as a great many skilled workers who at present have no work. I am willing to acknowledge the silver lining to the cloud, but I wish that Conservative Members would not fantasise and try to ignore the dark clouds, the problems, in Teesside. They must face the reality of our difficulties.
  998
  I said that I questioned the Government's sincerity and welcomed the proposals warily. One must do that if one looks at the Government's record on Teesside. We must not forget that when the Tory Government first came to power in 1979, the first thing they did was to reverse the decision to bring the Property Services Agency to Teesside, which meant that many potential jobs were immediately lost.
  I emphasise the comments that have been made so often from the Opposition Benches tonight about the lack of democratic accountability and the erosion of democracy that the UDCs bring. After all, we must remember that it is public sector money; therefore, there should be public accountability.
  It is clear that the Government do not even trust their own UDCs. Looking at the small print of what the UDCs have to do, one sees that each time they make a decision they must go to the Department for the decision to be okayed. That shows how much trust the Government place in the organisations that they themselves set up.
  The Opposition do not want to solve problems just by throwing money at them. We should like to see problems dealt with differently. It is not only a matter of developing property. We should like to see development that is technology-led and skill-based. We want different forms of development, not just development. We should like a strategic plan based on the region that involves local people and relates training to future industrial development. That is the progress that we should like on Teesside.
  I should like to finish with five specific questions to the Minister. I should appreciate it if he addressed them in his winding-up speech. First, in view of the massive scale of the problems that we have on Teesside, will the Minister do his utmost to see that there is no hold-up in the cash flow within the UDCs?
  Secondly, the problem of drawing up the boundaries to which the UDCs apply is one which I hope the Minister has considered in great depth, but I ask him to look again at those boundaries in relation to Redcar and Langbaurgh. Many areas there need to be considered because of the high level of deprivation.
  Thirdly, will the Minister do all that he can to ensure that jobs created by the UDCs are based locally so that local people can benefit from them?
  Fourthly, will the Minister review article 15 of the European regional development fund so that there is a chance for more money for the area, which would not mean additional local government funding or Department of the Environment funding?
  Finally, it is incumbent upon the Minister to address a question that has been posed several times in the debate. How can we have faith in his Department's ability to introduce the UDCs when the National Audit Office has refused to approve the Department of the Environment's annual accounts, because nearly £200 million has been unaccounted for, which, it is clearly stated, is not the fault of the local authorities?
  Mr. Trippier: As there is an acknowledgement in several articles that covered the same subject this morning that the procedure has been streamlined and improved, and even the Comptroller and Auditor General has accepted that that is unlikely to happen again, how does the hon. Lady explain the dichotomy that she has just revealed? On the one hand, she complains that the Department of the Environment wants to keep a fairly

  999
  close check on the UDCs, yet she now draws the attention of the House to the problem which, perhaps, has been caused by our not keeping as close an eye on them as we should in the past.
  Miss Mowlam: That is exactly the point that I am trying to make. If we do not have local democratic accountability and are dependent on the Department for the control of the funds, it is incumbent on the Department to make sure that the money is carefully checked. It is interesting that the Minister should acknowledge the problems in previous years. I hope that with him at the head of the UDCs we do not see the similar problems and waste of public funds in future.
  8.44 pm
  Mr. Simon Coombs: It is a great pleasure to address the House after the hon. Member for Redcar (Miss Mowlam), for two reasons. One is the fact that, according to her excellent article in The House Magazine, I am apparently one of only three Conservative Members who know where her constituency is. I have been there. Secondly, she and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) have brought a spirit of moderation into the debate that was sadly lacking in one or two of the earlier contributions. Bearing in mind the state of dereliction of the Labour party in 1987, perhaps there is a case for an urban development corporation for that party. If so, I shall be happy to suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that the hon. Members for Redcar and for Wolverhampton, South-East should be selected for membership.
  I speak in the debate not as a representative of a constituency in one of the UDC areas, but as a representative of a constituency which has found its own way of achieving results similar to those that we are beginning to see in the UDCs. I pay tribute to all the members of Thamesdown borough council, formerly Swindon borough council, who had the foresight—I speak of members of both major political parties—to recognise that a major industry was in decline in the town and that it was necessary to go out and look for jobs.
  It is significant that Swindon is 80 miles from London, but has managed to attract so many more jobs than London dock lands, which is right there next to the heart of the City of London. It has been only because of the initiative taken by the Government and the LDDC that that story of decay has been turned around. I hope that Opposition Members will recognise that some Labour-controlled local authorities have been successful in following the entrepreneurial policies that create regeneration and bring jobs. Therefore, it is not good enough for them to say, "We never have the money." Swindon has never had a penny of Government money, yet it has achieved 50,000 new jobs in the past 25 years to replace the 30,000 that were lost. Such an achievement can be made and should have been made by local authorities that are now overborne, as some Opposition Members would say, by the UDCs.
  I have had an interest in one of those areas, the LDDC, for many years. I worked not far from Wapping in the City of London and many times in younger days I used to walk down Wapping high street and look at an area which, for all the protestations of one or two Opposition Members, had become seriously derelict. The jobs had gone and to a tragically great extent the life had gone out of that area.
  1000
  Why had that happened? The answer is that the great industry of that area had decayed. The docks industry had all but disappeared. A few years ago I went with a group of fellow Members from both sides of the House to Rotterdam docks. The attitude of people in the London docks in those days was, "Don't try to modernise us. Don't try to frighten us into accepting the modern technology of containerisation." The people of Rotterdam, however, responded positively to the challenge. That is why we must regenerate the area that we still call docklands and why the port of Rotterdam is now the most successful in Europe.
  The Government are entitled to a tribute for their success in inner-city policy over the past seven years, and particularly for the activities of the urban development corporations. I welcome the extension of the financial support available to those bodies. The Merseyside and London Docklands development corporations are transforming previously derelict areas into areas of economic growth, prosperity, and—very important—hope. It is a testimony to their success that the Secretary of State has created five new urban development corporations in the past year — Tyne and Wear, Teesside, Trafford Park, Black Country and Cardiff Bay.
  The success of the London Docklands development corporation is particularly remarkable and shows how good an investment of public money the UDCs can be. For every £10 spent in docklands, only £1 comes from the taxpayer. The rest of the £5 billion now committed to or already spent on regenerating the areas has come from the private sector. Public funds have primed the pump and stimulated private investment, providing jobs, housing and amenities for docklands and an addition to the economic base of the nation as a whole. Unemployment has started to fall in docklands. The LDDC has brought nearly 10,000 jobs to the area so far and 80,000 new jobs are projected by 1992. Only today the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry officiated at the ground-breaking ceremony at the Canary Wharf development, which will create 40,000 new jobs when it is fully operational.
  Mr. Spearing: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not present when my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) complained to the House that she had heard of a press conference relating to her constituency to which she had not even been invited. Is the hon. Gentleman now telling us that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has travelled today to Bow and Poplar for a ceremony without my hon. Friend's knowledge and, indeed, without her invitation?
  Mr. Coombs: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question, because I do not know the answer. I do not know whether the Secretary of State travelled to Bow and Poplar without informing the hon. Lady. If he did, I would regard it as a mistake, but it would be a mistake that followed hard on the footsteps of innumerable Opposition Members, including the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) who have regularly come to my constituency in the past year without giving me notice. Let us think carefully before we cast any blame.
  The LDDC recognises that new job opportunities often do not match the skills of local people. That is why it has launched a major training initiative under which 1,000 local people are now being trained in new skills by an organisation called Skill Net with the co-operation of the LDDC, the Inner London education authority and the

  1001
  London borough of Newham. The developers of Canary Wharf have signed an agreement with the borough of Tower Hamlets to fund additional training initiatives. In Newham, the borough council has signed an agreement with the LDDC for co-operation on homes, jobs and training. All of that makes an interesting contrast with the total hostility demonstrated by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).
  That is the way forward, and other Opposition Members have stressed the need for it. If only all Opposition Members would take the pragmatic view. Still more jobs are being created at the London City airport to be opened tomorrow by the Queen. The airport will be a magnet for still more jobs in the area.
  Critics of the London Docklands development corporation like to say that the housing created in the area has not benefited local people. That is simply not the case; 45 per cent. of the houses sold were sold for less than £40,000. That represents the best possible value for money.
  Under local tenants priority schemes, 2,000 previous tenants of local authorities have bought new homes. In 1981, 96 per cent. of housing in docklands was rented; today that figure is down to 83 per cent.
  The Labour party is in the unfortunate position of having to denigrate success and achievement. It is clear from their remarks that many Labour Members wish that that were not the case, but on they go. There is a deep conservatism among Opposition Members. The Conservative party is now the radical party and is prepared to look for radical approaches to tackle the problems that remain.
  Opposition Members should remember these simple points. Regeneration of derelict areas creates jobs and cuts unemployment, and surely they are not against that. It saves taxpayers' money, which can be used for other purposes in social services, education and housing, and it provides the rate base—let us say, the community charge base—for the future when the development corporations have ceased to exist and the local authorities are again entirely responsible for activities in their areas.
  Let Opposition Members remember that the so-called yuppies, whom they love to denigrate and in whose so-called downfall they exalt, are often the sons and daughters of residents of the docklands area. With the success that their new jobs in the City has brought them, they want to own their own homes. They want to be part of the property-owning democracy. If the Labour party continues to fail to recognise that point, it will continue steadily to lose its political support.
  New companies establishing themselves in the areas of the development corporations should be encouraged to support not only job creation enterprises in these areas but provision for leisure and for the arts. The quality of life for people moving into the areas is vital. It is not good enough simply to provide the infrastructure, jobs and houses. We must ensure that those who come to the areas will enjoy living in them and that they will be attractive parts of our country in which to reside.
  As I see him in the Chamber, let me pay tribute to the activities of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). He has encouraged and sponsored and now chairs a charitable trust called the Outlandos Trust, which is essentially the brain child of the pop group The Police. The trust tries to bring the necessary funds to young
  1002
  people in deprived areas to enable them to establish pop groups and engage in other forms of activity that will encourage them to get out of difficult circumstances. That is the kind of practical help that we need and that is given by Conservative Members.
  I support urban development corporations because they are pragmatic and because they work. I support the new generation of mini urban development corporations, which will be much shorter in life and much smaller in size but which, I hope, will have an equally galvanic effect on the areas where they are established.
  Certain Opposition Members have talked about democracy. Which is the more important aspect of democracy? Is it the caucuses of Labour party activists in smoke-filled rooms, the protesters, or is it the policy of a Government who have been re-elected twice and who are regenerating the areas that are most in need of it by means of the highly successful urban development corporations? The people of this country endorse that policy, when given the opportunity to do so. I ask Opposition Members to recognise that fact, to drop their opposition to these corporations and to show the kind of pragmatic, responsible realism that will enable all of us to create jobs for the people who live in those areas.
  9 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me immediately after the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) because I echo 100 per cent. his last words: regeneration for the benefit of the people who live in these areas. But his selective quotation of an area that he knows in part does not reflect the truth.
  The truth about the London Docklands development corporation and its strategic plan is that it is not based on meeting the needs of the people of east London. The hon. Gentleman, who is a good debater and who is relatively fair, shakes his head, but that is the truth. The LDDC is not meeting the pressing needs of the people of east London. There are 600 homeless families in Newham, the second most deprived borough in the country. The LDDC is not meeting their needs. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo), who courteously allowed me to intervene during his speech, unintentionally put his finger on the spot. As the hon. Member for Swindon may not realise, the Bill refers to the regeneration of the area, not to the regeneration of the community.
  The hon. Gentleman said that the sons and daughters of my constituents are working in the City. Yes, some of them are working in the City, but some of them are not, and never will. I am referring to the children and grandchildren of the people of Canning Town, Silvertown and north Woolwich. Their opportunities to remain in the area and obtain employment in it are, if anything, being reduced by the LDDC.
  I have in my hand an advertisement for the Shadwell basin area in Wapping. The Tower Hamlets council wished to erect houses to rent there. Lord Cross said that the overriding demand in docklands was for small houses for people to rent. Shadwell basin is now advertising for sale flats and maisonettes costing £185,000. Those who bought their properties during the early stages of the LDDC have gained, but the price of similar properties has now soared beyond the reach of almost the rest of the original population of east London. Properties of £20,000

  1003
  or £30,000, which people could afford provided they were in a job, now cost up to £100,000. That is not an unusual price in my area.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I do not think that anybody fails to recognise the needs of those who live in the area that the hon. Gentleman has described. However, during the latter part of his speech the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) said that if the social mix of an area is destroyed and the mangement class leaves, one has to rebuild the social mix during its regeneration. One cannot avoid, therefore, bringing people from outside into the area to give it wholesomeness.
  Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman has demonstrated the partial knowledge that Tory Central office and LDDC briefings impart. Often the figures for docklands are related to the area of the LDDC—along the river—but the dockland communities of east London are different, with centres away from that area. The London borough of Newham is a hive of intellectual and artistic activity, as no doubt are Nottingham and Swindon, but it does not figure in the dockland figures. We wanted to use the docklands for the pressing social needs of the community of Newham so that it would act as a balancer for the needs of the rest of the borough. The 200 acres that the borough was allocated to build 8,000 homes for rent was taken by the LDDC and sold to Sir Lawrie Barratt and others. It is true that some housing associations were formed, but not in sufficient numbers. The hon. Member for Swindon said that we have signed an agreement. We have done that because we want something rather than nothing, and I am glad that he agrees that that something is not what it should be.
  Another myth about the past — this was said on television by the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker)—is that we had not done anything in the area and did not wish to do much for the docklands. Mr. Reg Ward, who is the retiring chief executive of the LDDC, was interviewed on the World Service. The interviewer pointed out that the plan was introduced by a Conservative Government, but that before that the Labour Government had planned to redevelop the area.
  Mr. Ward said:
  "Yes, I think there were about four major plans produced over the early nineteen seventies which culminated in the plan of the Docklands Joint Committee in 1976, which tended in fact to see the plan as being the means whereby all the social needs of the area might be redressed."
  He meant that his plans did not fill that objective. Perhaps the hon. Member for Swindon will now understand why we feel aggrieved.
  The greatest grievance of all concerns Canary Wharf. The Minister has confirmed in written answers to me the cost of the land. The programme was developed with north American capital and will eventually cost about £3,000 million. We were promised 50,000 jobs and a piazza the size of Paddington station. Written answers show that that land was acquired for £20 million — £12 million in equivalent public development and £8 million cash. Will the Minister say how the developers obtained £3,000 million of development for £8 million cash? There are suspicions in east London that there has been a fiddle.
  There is a surplus of about £49 million on the consolidated income and expenditure account of the LDDC. Much of that has been accumulated by land deals.
  1004
  Is it not right and proper that that £49 million should be ploughed back into meeting the social needs of the borough? The land values are being increased by the mechanisms of the LDDC, so it should meet the needs of the area.
  Mr. Simon Coombs: Does the hon. Gentleman understand the distinction that we make between the years and years of decline of the docklands and the innumerable plans, and the short period between the establishment of the development corporation and all the activity that is occurring there now?
  Mr. Spearing: I regret giving way to the hon. Gentleman because he does not appreciate what was happening. About £20 million of public money from the
  Thames water authority was spent on draining Beckton marsh. Plans were being made and many of the council houses in Tower Hamlets were built and can be seen in Shadwell today.
  Last week The Independent carried a report about the accounts of the LDDC auditors, Messrs. Robson Rhodes. They drew attention to the sum of no less than £7·9 million being spent on consultants and said that over 40 of those deals were not put out to competitive tender and did not comply with the rules laid down by the LDDC. I have a document here that I think I got out of the back of a copying machine. Robson Rhodes are the retiring auditors and I believe that they were appointed by and are accountable to the Secretary of State. The communication from Robson Rhodes says:
  "On other financial controls we noted instances of incorrect invoicing, failure to raise credit notes or otherwise action adjustments agreed with tenants, and uncertainty about the respective responsibilities of finance and area teams in a sample of 22 accounts examined."
  Under the heading "Establishment and maintenance of a contracts register" the auditors say:
  "We commented last year on the absence of this control over the correct accounting for interim payments under contracts. We understood then that efforts would he made to establish such a register. As yet, although there have been some systems design work on the project, a contracts register is not yet operated. Establishment and maintenance of a register of fixed assets: we have previously pointed to the absence of such a register, which in our view is required as a condition of the Corporation's Memorandum of Financial Arrangements."
  If a local authority had done only one of those three things, I am quite sure that the district auditor would, quite properly, have been down on it like a ton of bricks.
  This audit report shows that there is no reason to suppose that a corporation is any better at these things. A corporation is out of the public spotlight and away from the automatic checks that are inherent in our historic system of local government. In spite of that, through this Bill the Minister will pour largesse into organizations which are not only undemocratic, but which have leakages and difficulties of the sort that I have mentioned.
  9.11 pm
  Mr. Anthony Steen: I apologise to the House for not being present until soon after 7 o'clock. As you will know, Mr. Speaker, I attended a memorial service for a former hon. Member, Sir Henry Studholme, who was a Whip here for many years. I was not being discourteous in not being here at the start of the debate.
  One has a feeling of OA vu when one listens to the hon. Member for Newham, South. I have heard similar

  1005
  speeches from him over and over again on urban development corporations. They are always very enlightening, but they all have the same theme. We appreciate his consistency in this matter.
  Urban development corporations are a vehicle for central Government to take things away from local government in the belief that if they pour increasing sums of public money into a locality they can put things right. The idea of pouring vast sums of public money into urban areas is not necessarily the right approach. It is an illusion to think that more public money pumped into selected areas will create a better environment and a better habitat for the people who live there.
  President Carter spent $190 million in one very small neighbourhood of Atlanta in the belief that if the area was razed to the ground and the people moved out and a completely new neighbourhood built, when the people moved back the situation would immediately improve. Statistics were prepared showing the number of people on probation, the number of single parent mums, the number of elderly people, young people, alcoholics and unemployed in the area before it was knocked down. Ten years after the area was rebuilt the incidence of deprivation was virtually the same as before.
  Therefore, the Minister should be cautious about pumping vast sums of public money into the UDCs, because those corporations will not, by themselves regenerate our cities. They will enable new buildings to be put up and make the place look better, but they will not, in themselves, improve the quality of life for the people in those areas.
  Since 1968 endless sums of public money have been pumped into the cities. I have attended many debates in this House on urban regeneration, yet the cities continue to look worse. Whenever I visit my old constituency, in Liverpool, the city does not look any better despite the vast sums of public money that have been spent there.
  Although the UDCs are supported by both sides of the House, I do not believe that they will regenerate ailing neighbourhoods, help rundown communities and improve the quality of life in those areas. I believe that the Minister should consider whether he can go a bit slower regarding the UDCs. Rather than pumping money into one small locality for job creation and economic revival, perhaps the Minister could put some more money into neighbourhood renewal. I do not think that public money alone should be pumped into neighbourhood renewal; I believe that the people living in vast council estates and rundown inner-city areas should be encouraged to help themselves.
  It is apparent that Baltimore, Cleveland and Atlanta in the United States have been revitalised not by pumping massive dollops of Government money into small localities, but by giving the people in those neighbourhoods the opportunity to help themselves by partnership with central and local government. For example, someone living in Baltimore in a rundown house would be given a grant at an interest rate of about 2 or 3 per cent.—that was the interest rate 10 years ago—to do up his house. That person would borrow the money from the bank and paint the house, inside and out. In return, the local authority would landscape all round his house and the Government would lay a new road. It is that type of partnership between central and local government and the people that will regenerate our cities.
  1006
  In the past, either local government or central government have been involved in regeneration; the people have always been excluded. Even the task forces that play a great part in the Government's inner-city revival consist of people sent from Westminster to live in the chosen areas. Although it is much slower and more painful, we shall see the restoration of wealth creation and community development only by giving the proverbial carrot to the people living in the area.
  I ask my hon. Friend not to increase the money given to the UDCs, but to start giving more money to fund the partnership between local and central Government and the people. That is important. I believe in neighbourhood renewal and that people must be involved in the regeneration process.
  Although the UDCs are a fitting vehicle for economic regeneration and the creation of jobs, they do not result in an improved quality of life for the people in those cities. We need to improve their quality of life first and I hope that the Minister will say something about that when he replies.
  9.18 pm
  Mr. Alan Michael: It is a pleasure to welcome the closing remarks of the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). They were a welcome change from some of the remarks that we have heard from the Conservative Benches during a long, but not always entertaining, debate.
  I had intended simply to speak about some aspects of the co-operation that is needed to ensure the success of the UDCs, but I must refer to one of two of the diversions that have taken up so much time.
  Two Conservative Members made maiden speeches, and the Conservative party would benefit from taking note of what they said. One hon. Member warned that we in this House should beware of being trapped by the limited horizons of the London tube line. That was a worthwhile warning, especially as a number of Conservative Members reflected just such a horizon and gave a perspective of our country that I did not recognise.
  The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) appealed for partnership between public and private enterprise. Many Labour Members are used to such a parnership being effective and successful in local areas. I hope that the Minister will proselytise his own colleagues to that approach as a way of regenerating our communities. It is very much needed. Indeed, some of the rhetoric in the debate has been terrible to hear and is something that our communities do not need.
  The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) failed to recognise the achievements of public enterprise over many years. He failed to recognise the wisdom and business acumen that have often been contributed to those achievements, by those with a manual or non-academic background. Like many of my hon. Friends, I resented those remarks.
  Such contributions have been made through local government, whereas often a narrow commercial experience in public has not released creative energies into enterprise and local government. Only if the best of the creative ability of all aspects of our communities can work together will development corporations or local authorities work effectively for the communities that they

  1007
  represent. These work well only when people have a care and love for their localities and feel passionately that they want to do the best for them.
  The regeneration of the inner cities is important. I care about the regeneration of the Cardiff and Penarth area. It is too important to become a political football to be used as a symbol in debate. I hope that the Minister will explicitly reject the narrow and doctrinaire approach that has been urged on him by some of his more extreme Back Benchers. That is not what the Opposition are arguing for. We are arguing for the positive approach that can come about only through co-operation by everyone who cares about the locality.
  It is sad that the debate has been used as an opportunity to denigrate the democratic traditions and effectiveness of local authorities. We should be encouraging the positive aspects of local government and praising the successes rather than keeping the eye always on the odd failures, which have been blown out of all proportion by some hon. Members. We should not wallow in self-indulgent criticism of the work of others, but should look to those aspects from which we can learn. I hope that the Minister will be positive and not follow those negative criticisms.
  It seems that the world in which I live is different from that in which some Conservative Members live, because where I come from the Labour party through local government has taken the initiative either on its own or in partnership with commercial interests to regenerate the area. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales will confirm that description of the way in which things have operated in Cardiff and south Wales.
  The redevelopment of Cardiff city centre is one example of local government success. In that case local government initiated regeneration and worked in partnership with companies in the private sector. It effectively brought about a redevelopment that was in the interests of the city and the area that it serves.
  The Cardiff Bay development corporation has been referred to. That has an opportunity to build on a firm foundation that has been offered by local government. It also has a duty to build on that firm foundation, in co-operation with all the other agencies involved. That foundation is sound because it has been created over a number of years by local government. Labour councillors have played a full, positive and leading role in that regard and that is the right way to proceed.
  It is a ludicrous misrepresentation to say that we need an urban development corporation to cut through the red tape of local government. My experience in local government is that we have been battling against the red tape of national Government, which has increased over the last five or six years. I hope that there will be some reversal of that trend in the coming years.
  The positive aspect of development corporations is that they can be used as constructive mechanisms. They are not a magic wand, as some hon. Members seem to think. They can be used as positive, constructive mechanisms for improving inner cities. Development corporations are being given jobs and the resources to create jobs. I welcome that development. In my area, I shall work with the Cardiff Bay development corporation and everybody involved in it to make sure that it is successful, that it works for the area and my constituents—many of my constituents live within the hoard's area, although I
  1008
  understand that that is not the case in some other areas—and that resources are used for the benefit of the area.
  I welcome the support of the previous Secretary of State for Wales, who was rather quicker than some local Conservative county councillors to recognise the potential of the docklands area, and the present Secretary of State for Wales even if the initiatives are based on the urban development corporation structure. That may not be the necessary structure, but if that is the structure that we have, we should use it in the best way that we can.
  I suggest some points to be taken on board in ensuring how that can be done. The effect on employment needs carefully to be measured. We need to ensure that there is evidence, criteria, targets and that we measure the success of the actions that are taken and the way in which resources are used. From experience to date, there is a suggestion that that has not always been the case with some earlier development corporations.
  We need to make sure that resources are not simply diverted so that the success of one element in the reconstruction of a city is at the expense of other needed developments—that is, in effect, that money is not creamed off to generate success by stealing from other headings.
  We need to encourage a partnership with other job creating agencies. That is important. There is a danger that something such as a development corporation may want to become almost a unitary authority. Local authority partnership with bodies such as the Welsh Development Agency and Cardiff and Vale Enterprise is essential if we are to achieve long-term success. I hope that that aim will be encouraged by Ministers as the corporation develops.
  Area priorities need to be recognised. There is a danger that something will be identified as meeting the needs of a development corporation. We must always ask whether it meets not only the short-term needs of a company but the long-term needs of an area. The way in which a criterion is set and the way in which that question is asked and answered is important. We could have heard more in that respect, and I hope that we shall as time goes on.
  We must examine the danger of a loss of jobs. During relocation for the purpose of clearing areas, there is a danger that some jobs may disappear. For example, firms may go out of business rather than go to new sites. That aspect needs carefully to be monitored and measured.
  In the end, local people will inherit the results of a development corporation's work. It is important that they should be heard and involved at every stage of the decision making process.
  Accountability is so important that it has been stressed many times during the debate. At a time when local authorities must make their workings and information—and the basis on which they take decisions—open to the public in a way in which they did not have to in the past, it is ludicrous for an organisation such as a development corporation not to be equally open. I hope that the Minister will say that such accountability and understanding of the process will be built in.
  If people are appointed to a corporation, and they are uncertain about what they should say and what should be public, there is a temptation to say as little as possible. I hope that the Government will provide encouragement and confidence to corporations to be as open as possible with the public.

  1009
  I hope that I have made some positive suggestions about the way in which urban development corporations can be successful. There is a danger, which was reflected in the comments of some Conservative Members, that a mechanism can become flavour of the month and later, when people or the Government lose interest and move on to other things, be left to decay. The enterprise agencies are in such a danger.
  The Minister took an active part in the promotion of enterprise agencies, as I have through local government in my area. There is a danger that they will go on to the back burner now when they have achieved success in many areas. They need consistent encouragement over a long time. Enterprise agencies offer a mechanism that can be used for the positive benefit of local communities and should not be allowed to become a political football.
  If the Government take on board and respond positively to the points I have raised, we will be able to work in co-operation for the benefit of the community.
  9.31 pm
  Mr. William O'Brien: This has been a long and interesting debate, and I add my congratulations to those hon. Members who made their maiden speeches. I hope that we shall be hearing more from them.
  I congratulate my hon. Friends on their defence of local government, because we are talking about local services which are mainly provided by local government. Therefore, it is only right that we should express our appreciation to those hon. Members who have been defending local government.
  The Minister referred to the Chancellor's declaration that there will be further increases in UDC expenditure next year. The Minister used the word "substantially". I hope that there will be some increase in the resources channelled into local government because urban development corporations cover only small areas of the country that are being given extra resources for extra services. It is important that we take note of the services that are provided by local government, as there is very little difference in principle between the services provided by UDCs, for which we are increasing the available resources, and the services provided by local authorities, although the services provided by local authorities greatly exceed those provided by urban development corporations. I refer to social services and care for the elderly. There are now joint management schemes for health services and social services, and resources should be channelled directly to them. Those services are not provided by the urban development corporations.
  It is important that we remind the Minister that some areas in this country are served by good local authorities which need resources to meet responsibilities that they are having to face because of the demise of hospital services in many localities.
  On 24 October the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) said:
  "Why does the Government seem to be taking so many powers away from local government? Is this justified? Is it democratic? Will there still be a significant role left for local government? Do the changes proposed deal with temporary problems? Or do they mark a permanent shift in the constitutional balance of power?
  As Parliament begins to embark on a massive programme of change in local government finance, in education and in
  1010
  housing, it is natural to ask these questions and the anxieties that have been aroused make it sensible to try to provide answers. To start with, it is impossible to deny that the Government's proposals will reduce the scope of local government activity, and it is best to be candid about this. Within their areas, Urban Development Corporations take on the development powers of local government. Housing Action Trusts are to be allowed to take over council estates. And schools will be permitted to opt out of local authority control. In total, potentially a major reduction in the power and influence of local government."
  In other words, it is an attack on local government. That speech was made by a former Tory Minister.
  It is significant that several Conservative Members are concerned about the attacks on local government. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) in his place, as he has been absent for some time. He made personal attacks that were both unfair and unreasonable. I was a member of the Wakefield local authority, which was commended by a former Tory Secretary of State for speeding up the processing of planning applications. I therefore reject the hon. Gentleman's attacks on local authorities and their planning departments.
  Mr. Holt: Night after night, Labour party councillors in the north-east attack me, but I am unable to defend myself. Suddenly, when the boot is on the other foot and it hurts a little, the hon. Gentleman does not like it.
  Mr. O'BrienIf that is the level of politics debated in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, I am sure that his office will be of short duration. It is certainly not the sort of debate that we expect in the north-east.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) outlined the Opposition's policy on UDCs. He said that their aim was to attract private investment, although that is difficult in some areas. I understand that the Minister is due to visit the Wakefield metropolitan district. We will tell him that some areas are difficult to develop. Areas that formerly were the home of the mining and steel industries are not considered suitable by hi-tech industries, because it is claimed that the ground might be unstable. There is, therefore, a blight on those areas even before the establishment of a UDC. I hope that the Minister recognises that areas in the industrial north are blighted because of their former industries. In addition, because of the lack of infrastructure it is difficult to attract employers who might generate job opportunities.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington put some questions to the Minister. He asked whether there would be cuts in the finances available to urban development corporations. Can we be assured that financing of the corporations will increase? The introduction of mini UDCs was also raised. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain how areas are selected, because that has created much concern.
  Reference has been made to the decision of the Comptroller and Auditor General on grants allocation. The Minister said that action is being taken about that problem. What vehicle is to be used? How can we prove that urban development corporations are giving value for money?
  My hon. Friends have pointed out that urban development corporations are not democratic and are answerable only to the Secretary of State. Local people do not have a real input and their destiny is left in the hands

  1011
  of those who are in control of the UDCs. If we are sincere in our wish to provide local services and in the rhetoric that local services are important, we must ensure that local people have some say in the way services are provided.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Given the concern that the hon. Gentleman has expressed about local services — a concern that 1 expressed earlier—what still troubles me slightly is that I have not heard any opposition from his Front Bench to the principle of removing Parliament's control over the money granted to UDCs. Is the Labour Front Bench opposed to the principle of reduced accountability, or is it, like most of the Back Benches of the Labour party, supportive of the principle that the House should still have control over that money?
  Mr. O'Brien: I thought that we had made it clear that we, as a party, are opposed to the fact that there is very little democracy about the way urban development corporations are established and will operate. We are opposed to undemocratic procedures.
  Money is needed in many areas for the provision of local services. Further resources should be made available for that purpose. When I was elected to a local authority 30 years ago, I wanted to make changes to improve the environment of the area. That is the purpose of local authorities. I hope that the Minister will encourage local authorities whose areas are not included in the UDC development to stimulate job opportunities and develop housing amenities and recreation facilities.
  The Minister says that the success of urban development corporations is measured by the amount of private money that they can attract into the areas. Unless facilities are made available it will be difficult for local authorities to match up to the way that UDCs are measured. I hope that the Minister will explain how resources will be provided for the long-term planning of UDCs. We shall not divide on this issue, but we are concerned about the way in which the areas are selected, and the fact that the UDCs are undemocratic.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Trippier: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate.
  This has been a wide-ranging, interesting and enjoyable debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) on his first speech from the Dispatch Box. I also wish to compliment and congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) and for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) on their excellent maiden speeches. It is significant that they both paid warm tributes to their predecessors, Eric Deakins and Ian Wrigglesworth respectively, who were highly regarded by hon. Members of all parties.
  I particularly enjoyed the part in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow about the ridiculous rate increase with which we are all familiar—the 62 per cent. increase imposed by Waltham Forest council. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South made a stirring speech, the theme of which could be dubbed, shouting for the north. It contrasted with the contribution of the hon. Member for Redcar (Miss Mowlam), who gave what could only be termed a dark cloud speech. That seemed to be its theme. I am pleased that we now have an hon. Friend who is prepared to shout for the north and talk about its great strengths. Those of us who are
  1012
  passionate northerners become a little fed up when some of our fellow northerners are too quick to sell themselves short or pull themselves down rather than talk about what is best. I was delighted that the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) picked up that theme and agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South.
  The speech of the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) was constructive. He said that Labour Members will work with urban development corporations and give them maximum support. Obviously, Conservative Members welcome this support. We have found it difficult to understand the Labour party's official position with regard to UDCs. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman may have difficulty with some of his hon. Friends, particularly in London, because they still cannot decide whether the LDDC is a good thing. The number of Labour Members from London constituencies who are decrying UDCs shows the ideological stance which caused Labour to lose seats in the capital at the last general election—for example, in Walthamstow.
  I welcome the contribution of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), which was most constructive.
  The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) asked me whether we have the local authorities' support for the new UDCs. The right hon. Gentleman has much experience in this field, particularly in the Department of the Environment. We have both the support and participation of councillors, many of whom are Labour, on UDC boards. We are having considerable difficulty, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, with the LDDC board and, to a lesser extent, with the NDC board. I welcome the vast majority of contributions made by Opposition Members during this debate. It has been very refreshing to hear them.
  Mr. Frank Field: I hope that the House counts me as a northern Member who wishes to shout for the north. The shouting that I did in earlier interventions was designed to draw attention to the unfair distribution of resources by the Merseyside development corporation, which gave £180 million to Liverpool and only £4 million to Birkenhead. In support of those who shout for the north, I plead with the Minister to grip the Merseyside development corporation gently by the throat and make sure that, in years to come, the distribution of resources is fairer than it has been during the past five years.
  Mr. Trippier: I am broadly sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's point and to the interventions that he made earlier. He knows that a major difficulty has been the transfer of land from the Mersey docks and harbour board to the Merseyside development corporation, as it owns the bulk of the land on his side of the river which is within the development corporation boundary. He and I will be pleased when that transfer of land takes place, and I hope that in the near future I can announce some good news about that.
  Mr. Field: When the land is transferred, does the hon. Gentleman expect a fairer distribution of resources?
  Mr. Trippier: Yes. I am especially keen to have balanced development on both sides of the river. I am aware of what the hon. Gentleman has said, publicly and privately, about extending the boundaries on his side of the river.

  1013
  I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Houghton and Washingtoon say that he endorses private sector investment. Not all his colleagues have agreed with that. We need private sector money and ingenuity. We do not except similar leverage in each area. As I said in opening, no two areas are the same. The leverage will depend on many local circumstances. In the less promising areas, it may be some years before private sector investment builds up, and I accept the point made by hon. Members from the north-west and the north-east that it may be a little more difficult in their areas. But I refer again to the example of Salford quays, which is next door to Trafford Park urban development corporation, where there is an impressive leverage of 6:1.
  The Merseyside development corporation leverage has been low, but that is a reflection of the fact that it has had to concentrate on reclaiming severely despoiled land. That is nearly completed, and the MDC is concentrating increasingly on development. It envisages £100 million-worth of development, which will have a significant impact on the gearing ratio.
  The hon. Member for Normanton asked about the financing of UDCs. Recently my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced finance for the UDCs for the next three years of more than £200 million each year. The division of that sum among the UDCs will depend upon the programmes that they introduce each year. Full corporate plans will be prepared next year. The allocation of funds for next year will be based on preliminary strategies and the early opportunities that are available to each UDC
  Several hon. Members asked how we determine value for money. Individual projects are introduced by the UDCs and are the responsibility of the boards, which must decide their priorities within their budgets. As one would expect, the Department will check whether they conform with the established rules under which grant is paid and that they have been properly appraised. What constitutes value for money will vary from one project to another. The answer to the question why we cannot fund them as we did the new towns is straightforward: the new towns were financed from loans and were building on green field sites. The UDCs are building in areas where many millions of pounds must be spent before sites can be developed, and the only prudent way of financing such expenditure is by grant.
  I especially welcomed the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), who knows Trafford Park extremely well. He mentioned a good example of a Labour-controlled authority —Salford —which is prepared to work in co-operation with the private sector and with central Government. It might impress the Opposition if I said that co-operation between central and local government, whatever its political persuasion, and the private sector— the tripartite form —increases leverage. In some circumstances, we have had to bypass the local authority. We take no pleasure in doing that. I believe that that reduces the leverage and therefore Salford is a good example. However, my hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear me say that cheek by jowl and next door to Salford is Manchester city council which, from time to time, has proved extremely difficult for us to work with.
  The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney made a sensible contribution. We are all familiar with the
  1014
  background to it. However, I found it absolutely staggering when he said that much of what has happened in London docklands would have happened in any event, assuming that a Labour Government had been in office. We are all politicians, and I think that I have a vivid imagination, but that is stretching credulity to breaking point. I would suggest that not one hon. Member among the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends, let alone among Conservative Members, believes that. It is palpable nonsense and is demonstrably daft because it never happened. All the plans to which Opposition Members have referred and which perhaps were being considered in the 1960s or even the 1970s were never implemented. That is the difference—we got on and did the job.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked me about housing. We should be clear about the role of the LDDC in housing. It is not the local housing authority for the docklands area of Tower Hamlets, Southwark or Newham. The local councils have that role. The LDDC has no statutory power to build or provide housing in its area. It does not receive any money for that purpose. It has not diverted housing funds away from the local councils as the right hon. Gentleman appeared to imply. The conditions on docklands council estates are matters for the landlord councils. Their HIP allocations from central Government reflect the housing needs in their areas as a whole. They must determine their own programmes to reflect their view of local priorities. The LDDC has no locus in that.
  Mr. Shore rose——
  Mr. Trippier: I am sorry, I cannot give way as I have only four minutes left.
  It should be clear that the LDDC has shown considerable concern about local housing needs and has acted in a number of ways to complement local authority initiatives. It has promoted an affordable housing policy and has aimed to ensure that more than half of the houses built on LDDC land are priced below £40,000. It has acquired local rundown council estates, often for low-cost home ownership schemes. It has co-operated with boroughs on joint developments of adjacent sites for housing. However, perhaps there should be greater concentration on social housing.
  I had the opportunity recently of meeting the chairman of the LDDC board, his deputy and other representatives. I stressed that there is no lack of sympathy with the point made by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney about the need for social housing. Certainly I am prepared to discuss the matter with him in detail on any occasion that he wishes. Perhaps we shall find that we agree more than we disagree.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred to UDC finance. As I said in my opening speech, there is no shortage of ways in which Parliament can debate and investigate UDCs. There is obviously the formal process of voting on the Estimates, which offer scope for debate. The Select Committee on the Environment scrutinises the Department of the Environment's main Estimates and can look and has looked at proposed UDC projects. The Public Accounts Committee also examines UDCs. The National Audit Office is currently considering the LDDC and the NDC, and, of course, Opposition Members could choose to debate UDCs on their Opposition days. In addition, there are numerous opportunities during Adjournment and other debates on other subjects for UDCs to be discussed.

  1015
  However, I found it a little difficult to stomach taking lessons from the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey on co-ordination. It is a little rich to hear a Liberal Member talk about co-ordination. Indeed, it takes the biscuit that he should lecture us about partnership in view of the internecine warfare that has been going on between the Liberal party and the SDP, and the bloodletting that has taken place since the last general election. At the risk of hammering the nails out of sight, the hon. Gentleman has the temerity to ask who is in the lead on the Conservative side, when we have been baffled as to who is in the lead on the alliance side. The Prime Minister is in the lead. The day after polling day, she said that inner cities were at the top of the agenda. It will be for Parliament and the UDCs to play a vital part in that policy.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  Urban Development Corporations (Financial Limits) Bill

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered.
    That at this day's sitting the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

    URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS (FINANCIAL LIMITS) BILL [MONEY]
    Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Urban Development Corporations (Financial Limits) Bill, it is expedient to authorise any payment out of the National Loans Fund, the Consolidated Fund or money provided by Parliament resulting from provisions of the Act—

    (a) removing the limit imposed by paragraph 8 of Schedule 31 to the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980 on the sums which may he paid under paragraph 3 of that Schedule to urban development corporations;

    (b) providing for the amount of any repayments of sums borrowed by such corporations under paragraph 4(2) of that Schedule to be taken into account in determining the amount of the sums so borrowed which for the time being counts towards the limit imposed by paragraph 8 of that Schedule; and

    (c) varying the limit so imposed to £30 million, with power to increase it by order to £100 million;
    and any payment into the National Loans Fund or the Consolidated Fund resulting from any such provisions.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Bill
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Bill
  Clause 4

    CONSERVATION OF AREAS OF NATURAL BEAUTY
    10 pm
    Mr. Nigel Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 33, after 'beauty', insert 'or ecological equilibrium'.
    Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 34, after 'conserve', insert
    'together with any area designated as one of special scientific interest'.
    Mr. Spearing: There was some consensus in Committee about the Bill's purposes. There was also wide agreement on the form of the Broads Authority outlined in the Bill. There had been a preparatory Select Committee stage, this being a hybrid Bill. The legislation may well have benefited from that unusual, but sometimes effective, procedure.
    I have no commercial interest in the Norfolk Broads. My interest is one of recreation and leisure. I might be regarded by the Government, my hon. Friends and people who live in the Broads and the Norwich area — represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett)—as one of the most desirable types of visitors. I have known and visited the area for the past 50 years. I have hired boats from five yards and know a number of others. At present, and for the past 15 years, I have, as a private owner of craft, paid dues to the Great Yarmouth port and haven commissioners. Because of those activities, I inject a certain amount of my parliamentary salary into that area of East Anglia. I think that I have a number of proper interests that may commend themselves to all who have at heart the area's future prosperity and the health of the future Broads Authority.
    The problem throughout the Bill and the problem for the Broads Authority is how to reconcile conflicting interests. It is difficult to do that, because they all meet within the charming area of the Broads—on the water, on the surrounding marshland or in the surrounding countryside. Natural though we may assume it to be, we all know that the area was created by man through peat diggings and subsequent inundations and, therefore, what is beautifully natural there has been induced by man and can be destroyed by him equally quickly. That fear has brought statutory provisions together and brought the Bill through various and long stages of gestation to this stage, which will probably be virtually the last time the House will discuss it.
    Clause 4 states:
    "The Authority shall—
    (a)before the end of the period of two years beginning with the operative date, prepare a map showing any areas within the Broads whose natural beauty it is, in the opinion of the Authority, particularly important to conserve".
    A map is a most useful and accurate tool. It brings together in easily comprehensible and comprehensive form most of the features of an area that are significant for the purposes for which the map has been drawn. The map,
    1018
    which the Authority has a duty to compile, will, in a semi-pictorial way, represent many of the features of the conflicting interests.
    Throughout the discussions in Committee, a conflict emerged between those who properly earn their living in the area and wish to develop it commercially —mainly for holiday purposes—and what might be collectively called the interests of conservation. For reasons that I mentioned in Committee, I do not think that one can typify those interests as being navigation versus conservation, because the interests of navigation in the Broads are diverse. People use the Broads for different navigational purposes, and they navigate in different ways. There can be criticism of unsuitable craft with unsuitable engines, travelling at unsuitable speeds. Similarly, there are proper recreational and navigational uses, to which even the most fastidious conservationists would not object. Our problem is how to reconcile those interests in the Broads, and to decide what action the authority will take.
    I tabled several amendments in Committee which included the phrase, "the ecological balance". The Minister —we are glad to see him here — was good enough to look kindly on that phrase in several places. For various reasons, he could not accept my amendments—in one case for genuine grammatical reasons; in another, his rejection had something to do with hybridity. I shall not venture into that complex legal area now, unless by some chance the Minister resists the amendment tonight on the same grounds—in which case, I shall comment again later, if I manage to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I hope that the Minister will not adduce that controversial reason on this occasion. As he showed me in a letter, although it may involve complications, the factor of hybridity does not necessarily constrict the House's view, should it wish to change the Bill. I am glad to see the Minister nodding his assent to that.
    The amendment adds "or ecological equilibrium" after "beauty". As we discovered in Committee, the two are not the same. The natural beauty of a place may not be imperilled even though its ecological balance may be. For instance, a great deal of the ecological balance may be under the water. We know from what our anglers tell us that there could be great changes to the nutritional bases for fish and their propagation, or to the underwater activities of various plants, which, we are told by the naturalists, do not immediately strike the eye. Mayhem could be created by turbidity, without necessarily affecting what one sees with the eyes. Thus, the importance of ecological equilibrium in its scientific sense, must be added to what we believe is an important feature — natural beauty. That is why clause 4 states that the authority shall, as a duty, produce a map showing all the areas which it believes it is particularly important to conserve — not only areas of natural beauty, but those of ecological significance.
    I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment, because I do not believe that it prejudices any of the legitimate commercial interests that we mentioned in Committee, or the successful operation of the Act.
    Amendment No.3 is about sites of special scientific interest. That is a well-known phrase, which is found in many conservation Bills. I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) is present. He has the distinction of having piloted through Acts

    1019
    relating to the conservation of flora and fauna and to areas of scientific interest. I am glad that he has been able to attend the debate. Those areas are specified under other legislation. They are not specified by the Bill and will not be when it becomes an Act. There will be others which may change and which are already there.
    The map, which is statutory, would not be useful if it did not include the many areas designated as sites of special scientific interest that are already within the Broads. Perhaps many of the provisions in the Bill will not necessarily apply directly to those areas, but their presence and location and the fact that they are there should be known, or such a map will lack the comprehensive character that I believe everybody would wish it to have.
    The map will become a most effective tool for the workings of the future authority. It will enable people to understand the complex inter-relationships of land, air and water that we find in that unique and lovely area. Such a map, particularly if it is comprehensive in the way that I suggest, will enable those with, on the face of it, conflicting interests, to come together and reach a solution to their problems, in an area of human, political and commercial equilibrium which will match the natural equilibrium that we hope to retain for our future enjoyment.
    I shall not go further at this stage because I am sure, looking at the well-attended House, that many other hon. Members will wish to contribute to what I believe is a key debate. The natural equilibrium and how it should be sustained and maintained by the authority will be the heart of the matter in future.
    Mr. Peter Hardy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for his personal reference to me.
    I should like to make a couple of points, partly because of my involvement in conservation organisations, such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and partly because I am extremely fond of the Broads. I spent the last year of my Royal Air Force service stationed not far from the Broads.
    I should like to reinforce the argument advanced by my hon. Friend. He rightly said that there can be a real difference between that which is beautiful and that which is ecologically important. I do not want to strike a partisan note, but some hon. Members who were present at the first debate on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill may recall that one Conservative Member said that it was an area of uninteresting mud flats, of no attraction or importance, yet it was one of the most important Ramsar convention sites in Europe.
    Some parts of the Broads are attractive and should be preserved. To the uninformed, other parts may not seem important. However, hon. Members will probably recognise the significance of an area of reed beds that are not particularly attractive, but are the breeding site of the bittern. Parts of the Broads may be less beautiful than others but they are of considerable importance. The breeding site of the swallowtail butterfly is important because it is the last such site in Britain. Other rare insects, too, inhabit the Broads. The marsh harrier and the bearded tit are vital parts of the Broads fauna.
    I hope that the Minister will recognise the validity of my hon. Friend's argument. By all means, let us preserve that which is beautiful, but let us recognise that things that are not beautiful may provide the background from which
    1020
    beauty emerges. We should ensure that the Broads authority takes the message that it has a responsibility not merely to preserve the attractions of the Broads for tourists but to maintain the ecological inheritance of the Broads. If the Minister shares that view, which I believe is widely held in the House, he will no doubt consider my hon. Friend's amendment favourably.
    10.15 pm
    Mr. John Garrett: The point of the amendments, which are linked, is to focus on the fragile ecology of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads as a matter of paramount importance and on the need to take special measures to protect it. No doubt the House would not wish me to trespass too far at this stage into the central issue which really divides the House. The primacy of conservation over commercial activity, which we believe should be incorporated into the authority's objectives, remains the central issue but the amendments help to illuminate it.
    The area covered by the Bill is unique in western Europe. It contains 27 sites of special scientific interest, three national nature reserves and wetland sites of international importance under the Ramsar convention,
    The significance of the conservation and preservation of ecological equilibrium in such an area has to be set in the local context. The Anglia water authority area has a higher incidence of pesticides in watercourses than any other water authority area in the country. That is according to the report on pesticides of the Select Committee on Agriculture —a Committee that is famous for taking a balanced view of agricultural interests. Nitrate levels in watercourses in Norfolk are at the EEC limit and are found to go above it from time to time. As a result of the mercury discharges into the Wensum the levels of mercury and cadmium in eels in broadland waterways is the highest in the United Kingdom. Discharge of farm slurry and agricultural waste into rivers is a major problem that erupts from time to time. These facts add up to a very disturbing state of affairs and point forcefully to the need to take a rigorous view of the conservation of habitats.
    Surveys by the Norfolk Naturalists Trust have shown the extent of the threat to the landscape and wildlife habitats of Norfolk. Only fragments now remain of hedgerows, heath, natural woodland and wetland. Norfolk has been the site of enormous agricultural development in which the majority of hedgerows have been grubbed up, heathland ploughed and wetlands drained. The land has been soaked in nitrates, pesticides and herbicides, with incalculable long-term effects. Our Broads and waterways are grossly polluted with domestic and farm effluents and residues of agricultural chemicals.
    As the area receives increasing numbers of people, the effects will worsen and the statutory authorities will have nowhere near the resources necessary to deal with them. The Broads habitat is under constant threat from the effects of agricultural and residential development.
    As the pursuit of so-called balance between conflicting interests, as set out in the Bill, is a virtually impossible task, the fullest weight must be given to interests that are committed to the guardianship of the essential character of the Broads, and the protection of sites of special scientific interest should be very high on their agenda. As we frequently pointed out in Standing Committee, the balance has, if anything, been weighted in favour of

    1021
    commercial interests. Indeed, in the opinion of the Council for National Parks, the measure can be seen as primarily a navigation Bill.
    The Broads Authority's action plan for 1987 stated that restoration work on the Broads, which have suffered a serious decline in plants and wildlife, should take precedence over considerations such as tourism. Over the past 30 years, the once-clear rivers and Broads have become algae-clouded and barren.
    The Government have persisted throughout their terms of office in taking water pollution too lightly. We know from leaked documents that the Government have permitted safety levels for three notorious pesticides—dieldrin, aldrin and endrin — to be relaxed sixfold to allow existing levels of pollution from those chemicals to continue. The concentration of these pesticides in water and in fish is allowed in this country at levels that are outlawed in Europe and the United States.
    It is against this background that we consider the Bill to be inadequate in establishing the objects of the authority. Norfolk watercourses are grossly polluted. That pollution has found its way into most of the Broads. The point of these amendments is to focus on our view that the first object of the authority must be to restore, protect and conserve. The economic value of the Broads will vanish unless its fragile ecology is protected and enhanced. In a small way, these amendments point to the need for meticulous care over the conservation of the most endangered areas by identifying and mapping those areas that are under threat, particularly the sites of special scientific interest. Every week we hear of new damage to such areas from ploughing, drainage and pollution. I know one site of special scientific interest in south Norfolk that may be endangered by the dumping of slaughterhouse waste in the catchment area that lies immediately above this particular patch of wetland.
    We need to be constantly vigilant over the protection of these very special areas. In the Broads, the shrinking habitats of the marsh harrier, the bittern, the swallowtail butterfly and rare flora need to be identified and protected. The amendments emphasise that need.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House claim that they are committed to securing the long-term future of the Broads. Why, then, are we shying away from making such a commitment in the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Bill? To his credit, the Minister has been helpful throughout, but the Bill will formalise and institutionalise the downfall of this fragile landscape.
    There has been much muddled thinking. Attempts to find words—to say that the Broads come first have —been equated with conservation elitism. It is time for us all to step back from our particular vantage point and realise that the Bill does not say what we think it says —that the Broads come first. Unless we capture that objective in the Bill, I am afraid that there will be no Broads left to squabble about.
    We are in danger of losing sight of what makes the Broads special. We might as well be talking about the boating lake in the middle of Battersea park. The Broads are not just a boating lake. If we have any sense of history or of the special interests of the Broads, we know that we must make special provision for them. Even the bodies
    1022
    that represent the recreational interests, whether they be boating, fishing or walking, appreciate that we must put the Broads first, otherwise their natural beauty will be undermined and their unique contribution endangered. We are talking about the restoration of the Broads, not simply their conservation.
    For the sake of the Broads, we must ensure that the overriding duty of the authority shall be to secure the conservation and enhancement of the Broads, and within those purposes to promote enjoyment by the public and to protect the interests of navigation. That is what the amendments are about. It is a change that the Minister has so far resisted, and this is the last opportunity to ensure that that statement of principle is written into the legislation. I hope that the House will take that opportunity.
    Mr. Elliot Morley: We cannot separate the economy of the Norfolk Broads from the ecology of the area; the two are linked. It is important that a balance should be struck between the conflicting interests of tourism, agriculture, the habitat and conservation. What links them is the fragile nature of the area, its outstanding natural beauty and the outstanding sites of special scientific interest that support a wealth of wildlife.
    It is essential that within the context of the Bill the priority of conservation is recognised. If it is not, the economy of the area will be undermined. If people do not go on boating holidays because the rivers are polluted, smelly or because the fish and wildlife are dying, the interests of the people who rent boats will not be served. If we do not control what goes onto the land in terms of run-off and drainage, thus destroying the wildlife, the nature of the area will suffer. It is important that this amendment is adopted to clarify the importance of protecting the Norfolk Broads.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): I have listened to the convictions that have been expressed, not least about the conservation aspects of the Bill, in some of the useful contributions made in the debate. A number of the points will inevitably be covered by the comments that I shall make on Third Reading. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I concentrate on the amendments.
    Amendment No.2 seeks to import into clause 4 specific reference to ecological equilibrium, in addition to natural beauty, as something which it is important to conserve. I hope that the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) will note that clause 25(2) already provides that all references to conserving natural beauty are to be construed as covering aspects of ecological significance. I hope to be able to persuade the House that the amendment is unnecessary.
    I readily concede that in response to a related but somewhat different amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) in Standing Committee I undertook to devise some revised wording of clause 4(1) (a) that would make reference to the significance of the Broads in terms of its ecology. That is something that we have since thoroughly examined, although we concluded that it would be undesirable and unwise to make any change to the present wording. Our reasons for reaching that conclusion apply equally to the hon. Gentleman's new amendment No. 2, although it raises a number of further objections.

    1023
    I hall try to explain why any changes to the present wording of clause 4(1) (a) are undesirable and unnecessary. The hon. Gentleman suggested on Second Reading that the wording of clause 2 and elsewhere, as originally introduced, was unsatisfactory. It was argued that unless the term "natural beauty", which the Bill used in various clauses, was widened it would not cover flora, fauna and other aspects of ecological significance, which were of as much importance to the Broads as natural beauty is in its normal, visual sense. In his winding up speech on behalf of the Government my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy said that this was an arguable and realistic point and would he looked at carefully. This was done.
    We discussed the problem and the possibilities with, among others, the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission. As a result, we tabled amendments to clauses 2 and 25 which we put before the Select Committtee in the tilled Bill. The approach that we adopted was to bring the Bill into line with the wording employed in existing legislation relating to national parks in the countryside generally. As I sought to explain in Standing Committee, the effect of these amendments and of the Bill as it is now worded is that, wherever conservation of natural beauty is referred to, the wording expressly covers flora and fauna and geological and physiographical features no less than natural beauty in its visual sense.
    10.30 pm
    Mr. Hardy: I am not a lawyer and I cannot assess what lawyers would do in seeking to interpret the words of the Bill. Clause 25 refers directly and specifically to conserving. Clause 4 refers directly and specifically to the compilation of a map. That seems to suggest that there could be some doubt about the reference in clause 25 being absolutely secure. It would not do the Minister any harm to accept this amendment. If he does not accept it now, I am sure that there will be an attempt to introduce it in another place.
    Mr. Moynihan: I can assist the hon. Gentleman on this point. Where conserving is mentioned in the Bill, including references to a map, it means conserving the natural beauty of an area, and conserving flora, fauna and the geographical and physiographical features. That is why we responded to the hon. Member for Newham, South and to the legitimate concerns expressed on Second Reading. I hope that I can persuade the hon. Gentleman that that was the reasoning behind our response and that there is no exception anywhere in the Bill to our definition of the word "conserving".
    Mr. Allan Roberts: My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who dealt with the Bill on Second Reading, is, because of changed responsibilities, not here. He was one of the major architects of changes in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 which affects the map of the areas that we are considering. He supported the idea that this clause should be included in the legislation, because we still do not think that the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is strong enough to protect areas of special scientific interest. If the Minister accepts the amendment, he will set a precedent that shows that at last the Government are on the side of the environmentalists and are concerned not just about commercial interests.
    Mr. Moynihan: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's reference to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) because his contribution was very important. On previous consideration of the Bill it was the intention of the House and of the Government to ensure that clause 4 was closely modelled on section 43 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as recently amended by section 3 of the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act 1985 which was sponsored by the hon. Member for South Shields. Therefore, I and, I hope, the House would be reluctant to depart from a provision with which the hon. Gentleman was so closely associated, which was so recently considered by the House and which is operating quite satisfactorily in national parks. I understand that some existing maps prepared by national parks authorities under the provisions of section 43 already include sites of special scientific interest.
    For these reasons, we firmly believe it to be unnecessary to make any change to the wording of clause 4 to achieve what is the common objective of the hon. Member for Newham, South and the Government. We are satisfied that the existing wording fully covers matters. It would be unwise to depart from the present wording or to make specific reference to additional aspects other than those set out in clause 25(2). That is because that would tend to cast doubt on whether such wording, if it were used elsewhere —not only in this Bill in the other legislation that we have taken as our model—fully covers that which it ought to cover and which we and conservation bodies have generally believed it covers.
    Sir Giles Shaw: I have considerable sympathy with the amendment. Will my hon. Friend take note that, in seeking to defend the present position, he could take refuge in the fact that, within clause 4 and the amendments that we are discussing, there is provision for the Countryside Commission to issue a review and guidance regarding the Broads Authority's function.
    Although I understand my hon. Friend's reluctance to amend the wording already encapsulated in other statutes, he should note that the guidance should he, and should regularly be seen to be, commensurate with the objectives that have been outlined in the proposition for the clause. I hope that my hon. Friend will take steps to make that clearer, either in his remarks tonight or in another place, where, no doubt, these matters can be addressed again.
    Mr. Moynihan: I welcome that intervention, not least because it clarifies the important point that was raised in Committee and that we regard as central to the Bill. I shall ensure that during a meeting with the conservation bodies that will take place shortly this issue is brought to their attention. Clause 4 will be a useful vehicle for issuing guidance as a result of the passing of the Bill which, I trust, will take place this evening.
    I said that the new amendment raised a number of objections. I believe that the problem that it seeks to satisfy —it fails in that purpose — is that of conserving an ecological equilibrium. That issue was widely discussed in Committee on another amendment that the hon. Member for Newham, South tabled to clause 2. In Committee hon. Members and myself pointed out that the problems of the Broads are not so much those of conserving or maintaining an existing ecological equilibrium, but of halting and reversing ecological decline.
    The new authority may well seek to find a new equilibrium or recover one that has long been lost, but that

    1025
    is not what the amendment under discussion seeks. I do not believe it would be helpful to talk in terms of something so problematic as an equilibrium.
    Amendment No. 3 seeks to require the authority to show on its map any area designated as the site of special scientific interest. I have already explained that the term
    "conservation of areas of natural beauty"
    includes features of ecological significance. Therefore, it seems probable that any areas within the Broads that have been designated as SSSIs will be judged by the authority as those whose natural beauty is important to conserve and therefore as areas to show on its map. It will be open to the authority to do that, and I do not believe that the amendment is necessary.
    Specifically to require the authority to include SSSIs in its map would not sit happily with the requirements placed upon it under subsections (3) and (4) to consult the Nature Conservancy Council and others about the proposed contents of the map. The authority would be required by one part of the clause to consult on a matter which, in another part of the clause, it would have no option about.
    Mr. Morley: There are 27 sites of special scientific interest in the Broads. I accept that the authority may include them on the map, but if that is so, why not accept the amendment? Nothing would be lost by accepting it.
    Mr. Moynihan: I have tried to point out that the amendment, in its own right, is not necessary. Subsequent to the hon. Gentleman seeking to intervene I clarified the technical reason why the amendment would not sit easily in the clause. Indeed, it would be tautologous and would lead to the problems that I have outlined. That technical reason is important and should be considered by the hon. Gentleman. If he wished it could be considered in another place.
    To push the amendment to a vote would cause more problems than it would rectify, even if the hon. Member for Newham, South disagrees with the thrust of my argument.
    I must take this opportunity to apologise to the hon. Member for Newham, South if he understood an undertaking that I gave him in Committee to mean that we would amend clause 4 as he now proposes. I understood him to be asking the Government to show all of the SSSIs in the Broads on the one-page map of the Broads that we prepared in connection with the Bill. Despite some raised eyebrows in the Box, I accepted his suggestion because I thought it extremely useful. I am pleased to report that the map is now in preparation and should be available soon. I shall send a copy to the hon. Gentleman, and to others who let me know that they would like one.
    It appears that I have given the hon. Member for Newham, South something for which he did not ask. I hope that that will soften the blow of my saying that I do not feel able to give him everything for which he asks with regard to amendment No. 3. He should, I hope, have been persuaded that there is no need for his amendment as I am sure that the maps prepared by the Broads Authority will include SSSIs. Given those assurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendment.
    Mr. Spearing: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate.
    1026
    I am disappointed. I had hoped that, if amendment No. 2 did not meet with the Minister's approval, amendment No. 3 would. I have a feeling that the Minister is number four in the boat rather than the cox.
    The Minister says that amendment No. 2, which speaks of "ecological equilibrium" and what, in the "opinion of the Authority", it is "particularly important to conserve," is unnecessary and that the point is covered anyway. I shall examine how he says it is covered. Clause 25, the interpretation clause, provides in subsection (2):
    "References in this Act to conserving the natural beauty of an area include references to conserving its flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features."
    The Minister maintains also that conserving is dealt with in clause 2(1) (a)
    It is my experience that, when Ministers resist amendments saying that they are unnecessary, one's antennae should twitch. They are usually not averse to including amendments "for the avoidance of doubt" of their own or lawyers' making. Because the amendment is otiose in the mind of the Minister, or at least some of his colleagues, I have different doubts. His maintaining that clause 25(2) covers the point is, I am afraid, the reverse of reassuring. It immediately suggests that there is a one-way valve in the wording which means that the clause could not apply if it came to a fight in the courts.
    I have a different interpretation. Equilibrium is not stationary. It is like the mobiles that were fashionable a year or two ago. It can be different shapes. The statutory definitions clause, however, is stationary and rigid. There is no mention of the relationship between natural beauty, flora, fauna, geological and physiographical features. Rather, they are specified as individuals and distinct elements. We are talking about the total relationship between them. If there is any place in Britain where the total relationship is mysterious to scientists—even today they are researching certain aspects all over the place —it is in the wetlands and the ecological balance and the relationships between otherwise stationary features. What makes me even more worried is the little phrase which Hansard will reveal. I have no doubt that it is carefully drafted. The Minister said that the inclusion of the phrase would raise additional aspects. It is one of the major aspects. No wonder he does not want it in. I see that the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) is present. Perhaps other Conservative Members have contacts in other places. In a sense, the Minister has let the cat out of the bag — or let the coypu out of the bag; they are the same in this respect — in relation to the Government's intentions in resisting the otherwise acceptable amendment.
    10.45 pm
    I am more worried about the second amendment. Although I understand that clause 4 mirrors other legislation — I gather that is one of the reasons the Minister said that it was not necessary to have SSSIs mapped — we have seen the importance of equilibrium because of the relationship between wet and dry land. It is not so intense in other national parks. In any case, the Minister said, "Oh well, they will be consulting the Nature Conservancy Council and representative bodies. If they say that they should be in, they probably will be". In colloquial terms, that is what the Minister said, although he did mention the Nature Conservancy Council. I take it that if an SSSI is on the map, the map will not be illegal. However, it might be, as the Bill refers to preparing a map

    1027
    showing areas of natural beauty within the Broads. Would any additions to that be illegal? I do not suppose that they would be if the Minister has advised us that other things could be added.
    What about adding other things to the map? For the avoidance of doubt, would it not be a good thing to have such matters in? Does the Minister suggest that they are not significant or that they should not be mapped somewhere? Indeed, to the contrary. In a gracious reference to a little misunderstanding that we had — Hansard Will show it—he said that he thought that it would be a good idea to have it on a map. Indeed, that has been done, but the map is not in the Bill. The map is for the guidance of the Committee. No doubt, it will be resurrected in another place, pinned on the wall and the SSSIs will be shown. If they are not there they should be —although, if the Minister said that that they will be there, I am sure that they will. It is good to have the map for Committee discussions. We know that SSSIs are important places. Why should they not be specified in the Bill? The Minister's resistance adds to our worries. We believe that his resistance is based on some other criterion which is not immediately apparent.
    Mr. Hardy: Another argument fits that which my hon. Friend is presenting to the House. He will be aware that, in 1973 I introduced a Bill to protect budgies. It was not adequate, although we thought that it was at the time. The matter was examined in connection with another Bill which I successfully piloted through the House in 1975. We thought that it would he adequate, but it was not. We then thought that the Wildlife and Countryside Bill 1981 would be adequate. Experience showed that it was not. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) then brought his amending legislation into the House. It took 10 years to get it right. Although I am not a lawyer and am not particularly well versed in legal matters, I take the view—my hon. Friend might share it—that it is better to have too much rather than too little in the Bill now.
    Mr. Spearing: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out precedents that show even greater wisdom than my drafting of the amendment supposed. I am grateful to him for the scientific evidence of the need to be comprehensive in these matters. The reasons that the Minister adduced—and I am sure that he did his best—do not add up. For that reason, I think that some of my hon. Friends will show our dissatisfaction in some suitable way.
    Amendment negatived.

  Clause 5

    NOTIFICATION OF CERTAIN OPERATIONS WITHIN THE BROADS
    Mr. Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 27, leave out 'three' and insert 'twelve'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this we will discuss amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 29, leave out `twelve' and insert `twenty-four'.
    Mr. Spearing: For the benefit of the House, I should explain that on the previous amendment we felt that we had shown suitable dissatisfaction to serve the points that we had made.
    1028
    Clause 5 relates to orders that the Minister may make. For the benefit of the House, I shall paraphrase. Under the clause the Minister may specify
    "grazing marsh, fen marsh, reed bed or broadleaved woodland"
    and, in any such areas, operations that might affect the character or appearance of those areas. That provision permits the Minister, no doubt after consultation, to specify areas of particular sensitivity. Having identified such areas, the Minister may specify actions likely to affect the character or appeareance of those areas.
    Once that has been done, no person — presumably including owners or any outside person—can carry out any work that might contravene the Minister's order, unless written notice is given to the authority, which then gives permission. The authority can then do one of three things. First it can consent to what he wishes to do. I have no doubt that in well-managed land, particularly carr land, or land which is dedicated to the growing of reeds in which there is good commercial traffic, permission might be given if it is not to the detriment of ecological equilibrium or natural beauty or if there is not some other reason why it should not be done. So the authority can give consent.
    Secondly, the authority can, if it wishes, neither refuse nor give consent. It is rather like a planning application, but in that case the applicant cannot go ahead. Under the Bill he has to wait three months, and then he can go ahead.
    The third possibility is that the authority refuses consent. Then the applicant cannot go ahead and do what he wants to do until 12 months after the date of the refusal.
    This is a hybrid way of doing things, similar to that found under planning laws with which hon. Members will be familiar, but with one major and important difference: that, after the lapse of time, the person concerned can go ahead and do whatever he wants on the application even if the authority has said no or if it has not determined the application at all.
    I shall not spend much more time on the amendment because it seeks purely and simply to increase the periods. We wish to increase the three months to 12, and the 12 months to 24—a quadrupling in the first case and a doubling in the second. If the Broads Authority does not give consent, there must be a good reason. Therefore, it would be arbitrary to a degree to allow the applicant to go ahead after a relatively short period. I make no secret of the fact that in Committee an amendment was moved to delete these powers altogether. It would not be proper to debate that again here. Many of the arguments may be rehearsed, but if such an amendment had been tabled I am sure that it would not have been selected.
    The principle is clear. The authority will have a power which is but temporary. Because of the objectives that the Government have in mind, one would have hoped that the authority would have the first word and the last word. In this case, after an interval, which we wish to extend, it is the applicant who is to have the last word. That, in principle, is wrong. We cannot reverse it at this stage but we think that the applicant should wait a little longer.
    Mr. Moynihan: In Committee, Opposition Members tabled a number of amendments to clause 5, including one to delete altogether subsection (2) (b) and (c) which is the subject of the amendments. I advised the Committee that those amendments would unquestionably rehybridise the Bill, since they would affect private interests in ways not contemplated in the Bill. The present amendments would

    1029
    have the same effect. Rehybridisation could wreck, and would certainly badly delay, both the Bill and the establishment of the new authority. I cannot believe that supporters of the creation of a statutory authority for the Broads really wish to jeopardise in that way what they and the Bill are seeking to achieve. As hon. Members on both sides of the House know, I have never rested my case on rehybridisation.
    Even if the amendments would not rehybridise the Bill, the Government would strongly urge the House not to accept them. We do not consider it appropriate in such a Bill to make any changes in legislative provision of national application other than those which are required in orders to adapt them to the local circumstances of the Broads. Clause 5 does no more and no less than to apply to the Broads the provisions of section 42 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, with such relatively minor modifications as are necessary to reflect the unique features of the Broads. For example, where section 42 refers to "moor and heath", clause 5 refers to
    "grazing marsh, fen marsh, reed bed or broad-leaved woodland."
    They represent the equivalent types of landscape that it is vital to preserve in the Broads.
    11 p.m.
    Mr. John Garrett: If it is so vital to preserve them, perhaps the Minister will tell us how many orders have been made under section 42.
    Mr. Moynihan: That is an extremely good question. I shall ensure that, by the time I have concluded my remarks, the hon. Gentleman will have the precise answer.
    Section 42 of the 1981 Act provides a means by which national parks authorities will be notified of impending agricultural and forestry proposals and can impose a period of delay during which management agreements may be negotiated to obviate any damaging effects of such proposals. Voluntary arrangements already exist in national parks, under which such notification is given. Section 42 provides legislative backup should such voluntary notification systems break down. Clause 5 serves simply to extend the backup provision to the Broads.
    The existing time limits carried over into clause 5 from section 42 are adequate and are appropriate for their purposes. Three months is a reasonable period in which to expect the authority to reach a decision whether to grant consent. By contrast, it could seem unreasonable to expect those concerned to wait for as long as 12 months for that decision. Equally, 12 months should be a sufficient period for the authority, where necessary, to negotiate a management agreement with the owner or occupier of the land in question. Twelve months represents one complete growing season or agricultural cycle. Any extension beyond that would prevent the proposed operations for two seasons, without any compensation. The House cannot consider that to be reasonable.
    I suspect—what hon. Members have said in support of the amendments reinforces my suspicion—that those proposing the amendments are trying to convert the provisions of clause 5, which are designed to provide no more than a useful delaying mechanism, into what would be more akin to stop orders. Such orders would deny
    1030
    landowners, for at least one season, and possibly two, the right to use their land for agricultural purposes in a way that would be open to landowners everywhere else in the United Kingdom, including the national parks.
    The Government do not believe that section 42 or clause 5 provide an appropriate way of dealing with the absence, as yet, of effective backup powers to protect the landscape at large from uncontrolled and damaging agricultural operations. Instead, we have been consulting on proposals for landscape conservation orders, which would provide national parks authorities and the Broads Authority with this sort of power, as recommended by the Select Committee on the Environment in 1985. We are carefully considering the responses to our proposals and will make an announcement in due course.
    It comes to me in a blinding flash of light that no orders have been made under section 42.
    Mr. John Garrett: Does the Minister know where that blinding flash came from? The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), came and asked me.
    Mr. Moynihan: It was an unusual occasion, with a great deal of thunder in the Box coming before the blinding flash, which took some time to arrive. As hon. Members know, this is a fallback power which, thankfully, has not been needed because management agreements have not broken down.
    For the reasons that I have put before the House, I strongly urge hon. Members to reject the amendments.
    Mr. Spearing: This amendment is in a different league from the previous one. I do not find the Minister's arguments wholly convincing in some respects. Although a national norm is a good bench-mark, I think the Minister will agree that there is a big difference between the national parks and the Broads, not just in area but because the Broads are very close to river and marsh areas. Although significant, those areas are smaller and similar in a way that bigger areas are not. However, having said that, we understand the Minister's point about the penalties that exist in terms of seasons and the difficulties that might ensue.
    The Minister put his finger on the real nub of this issue by saying that management agreements can be negotiated. Some of us hope that, despite the Bill's shortcomings, good will and a spirit of purpose will make things work. Several provisions in the Bill could improve that. However, coming together in voluntary management agreements would probably make full use of the fallback statutory power and the others that the Minister has described as unnecessary. Because of that and because this matter might be taken up in another way in another place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, that the Bill be now read the Third time. [Mr. Moynihan.]
    11.6 pm
    Mr. Allan Roberts: In my new incarnation as the shadow Minister for environmental protection and development, this is the first time that I have faced the Minister across the Dispatch Box in his new role. I welcome him to his new job. There was some concern when the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) was shifted away from his responsibilities for

    1031
    the environment. Many environmental groups and other organisations concerned about the environment thought that he might have been moved because he was getting too fond of the environment and was, therefore, committing the Government to too much public expenditure. We have yet to see whether the new Minister can live up to the reputation of the hon. Member for Bristol, West and sustain a campaigning interest for and on behalf of the environment within the Department of the Environment.
    I remember the last time the Minister and I crossed swords. It was some years ago. I had cycled to the House and was exhausted. I felt that the hon. Gentleman, who was filibustering on a housing Bill that I was trying to introduce, should give up and, as a keen sportsperson, take my bicycle back to Bethnal Green as the journey was all uphill. He refused to do so although I offered to fit blocks to the pedals. However, I am pleased to welcome the hon. Gentleman and to face him across the Dispatch Box.
    The Bill is important, and the principle of the Bill, which sets up the equivalent of a national park for the Norfolk Broads, is one that Opposition Members welcome. The Labour party has always been committed to that concept. In fact, since as far back as 1947 and the publication of the Hobhouse report, which advocated the need for such a national park, the Labour party has advocated that proposition. The problem is that we are not so sure that the Bill meets all the requirements. My hon. Friends have highlighted the issues that concern us.
    There are four major problems in the Norfolk Broads. One is polluted rivers, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) has talked. Pollution from nitrates and nitrites is increasing, with farm slurry and even human sewage getting into the rivers. That is still happening. We all welcome the concern of the European Community about nitrates in drinking water and in rivers, but the Community is putting it there in the first place because of the common agricultural policy, to which we subscribe. The Government must get to grips with that and in legislation such as this they must protect the rivers in the Norfolk Broads, and elsewhere, from nitrate and other forms of pollution because it is still increasing.
    Another problem is the diminishing wildlife. The wildlife in the Norfolk Broads is amazing. The ever-vigilant Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has issued a brief which says:
    "The proposed Broads Executive Area contains important habitats for rare birds such as the marsh harrier, bearded tit and bittern and for rare plants including marsh pea and water soldier."
    I had not heard of a water soldier until I started to look at the Bill. The brief does not mention the natterjack toad, which lives in my constituency, but goes on to say:
    "The Broads provide the only remaining habitat in Britain for the swallowtail butterfly and Norfolk aeshna dragonfly."
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): Oh.
    Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman says, "Oh." If he had his way, he would build a motorway across the area. It is important to protect these species because the whole ecological system inter-relates. There is the problem not only of polluted rivers but of diminishing wildlife.
    There is also a problem with the erosion of the sides of banks. One of our criticisms of the Bill is that navigation rather than the protection of the environment has been put first. We are worried that the commercial interests of the
    1032
    Norfolk Broads might have been put before the protection of the environment. A law prevents people going at more than 4 mph along the canals. Boats cause erosion of the banks and there is pollution because of the discharge from motor boats. We are not sure that sufficient attention was paid in Committee to amendments which would have dealt with this problem.
    The Opposition are concerned also about effects on the uniquely traditional landscape of the Norfolk Broads, 25 per cent. of which has already vanished. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the declaration of areas of special scientific interest have not saved the Norfolk Broads' traditional special landscape. All right, 75 per cent. is left—that is fine—but, if erosion continues at the same pace, eventually that land will go, too. We hope that this legislation will protect that area, but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. We shall examine those points to find out whether the legislation is effective.
    Anglers have not been given the consideration in the legislation and amendments that they might have been. More people fish in the Broads than sail on them. Angling is the biggest participant sport in Britain. More attention should be paid to anglers and to the fact that pollution in the rivers affects their sport.
    We must preserve the natural beauty and ecological balance of the Broads and put them before commercial interests. If the Government have the balance wrong—a Labour Government will strengthen the legislation to give it more power—they will destroy the very thing that caused them to get it wrong. Commercial interests in the Norfolk Broads are dependent on its environment. The combination of natural beauty and wildlife on the Norfolk Broads attracts hundreds of thousands of people. They give the area its commercial viability. If the Government, in conjunction with commercial interests, destroy that environment—by not giving the necessary powers and not accepting amendments—they will destroy the goose that lays the golden egg.
    We shall not oppose the Third Reading. We favour the concept behind the Bill, although we do not think that it is strong enough and are not sure that it will do the job. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. We shall wait to see what happens and return to the legislation in the future.
    11.14 pm
    Mr. Michael Carttiss: I need detain the House only briefly. With the passing of 300 years of history for my constituents as a result of the Third Reading, I think that my constituents expect me to say a few words.
    Contrary to what the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) has just said, the Government have got the balance between ecological equilibrium — if one can balance an equilibrium — and other interests right. It would be wrong not to recognise that the concerns voiced by Opposition Members earlier exist in different degrees throughout the whole of Norfolk and Suffolk. Nevertheless, one can tip the balance too far in one direction or the other. I can understand the arguments of those who say that the balance has gone too far in the direction of commercial interests, although I do not agree with them.
    For 300 years of our history, powers have been effectively exercised by the Great Yarmouth port and haven commissioners. They had ample opportunities to

    1033
    present their views to the Select Committee, and I was able on several occasions in Standing Committee to draw attention to matters that I still believe would have made this a better Bill.
    There is no need for the Broads Authority to have the navigation powers that it has. I understand why that has happened, and the issues have been argued effectively. It is important to remember that Norwich, Suffolk and Norfolk are all represented on the commission. It is not a body that is confined to the town of Great Yarmouth. There is now widespread acceptance—notwithstanding my own reservations—that the Broads Authority will be more effective if it has navigation powers. I am sure that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) would not have been so helpful during the passage of the Bill if it had not included those powers.
    There is one aspect of the Bill that will, I hope, be rectified in another place as a result of what the Minister said in Standing Committee. I refer to the Broads Authority's boundaries for exercising its planning powers. Setting the boundary near the Haven bridge in the centre of Great Yarmouth—next to Norwich, the main commercial centre for Norfolk and Suffolk, with respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) — and making the Broads Authority responsible for planning within the heart of Great Yarmouth, overlooking the development of commerce and industry on the riverside, is a matter of concern locally. If the Great Yarmouth borough council, as the affected planning authority, wants to make representations elsewhere, that is a matter best left to it. However, I am still concerned about the fact that the boundaries of the authority's planning powers extend beyond the river.
    I have spent all my life on the Broads and seen the decline that has been mentioned. However, it is nothing like as bad in some areas as has been maintained. I think that the Government have got the balance right. I am delighted that they have refused to accept the amendments. I hope that the Bill will return unamended from another place. It is a good job, coming as it does after many years of discussion about the right solution in Norfolk and Suffolk. I hope that people will be able to enjoy holidays on the Broads—including all their flora and fauna — and, above all, that the Broads will continue to be an important provider of employment in Norfolk and the constituency of Great Yarmouth.
    11.19 pm
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: As a newcomer to the House, I have come late to the parliamentary procedures on the Bill, although as a member of Norfolk county council I was involved in the early local stages.
    The Bill enjoys wide support in Norfolk. I make that point because my hon. Friend the Minister and other hon. Members may be tempted to believe, following the extensive and absolutely proper lobbying by the many special interest groups, that the whole of Norfolk is seething with discontent about the Bill. The reverse is the case. The special interest groups, whether they are concerned with wildlife, the environment or the use of the Broads for work or leisure, are at least united in the view that the powers proposed by the Bill are vital if that unique area is to be safeguarded.
    1034
    The wider public in Norfolk want to see an end to the conflicts of interest that have brought the Broads to the state of near ruination that they have reached in certain places. That is why, in the county as a whole, there is agreement that it is right, indeed essential, to preserve a balance, as the Bill seeks to do, between those special interest groups, and not to favour any one at the expense of the others. Any other solution would have proved unworkable.
    There was one area of concern on which I should have sought reassurance from the Minister had he not been illuminated by a blinding flash. I shall not repeat his other less becoming imagery. Suffice it to say that I should seek a little reassurance from him that he understands the concern in some agricultural quarters that section 42 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 cannot be applicable to an area that does not have many moors, or a great deal of heath or open country that is not to be designated a national park. I hope that my hon. Friend can reassure me on that point, but I believe that the Bill is right in the balance that it seeks to strike.
    11.22 pm
    Mr. Michael Lord: On Second Reading, I spoke about my childhood memories of Arthur Ransome and the Norfolk Broads and books such as "Coot Club" and "We Didn't Mean to go to Sea". Hon. Members may remember such books. That underlines the affection that we all have for the Broads, which was apparent in Committee. People have great affection for the Broads and a deep desire to make sure that they are preserved and restored.
    However, even in the Swallows and Amazons stories there was conflict between the boats and the fishermen and all the different people who enjoyed the Broads. Since those days it has got considerably worse, and now it is imperative that action is taken. The Bill and the Broads Authority that is being established are the ideal answer to the problem. The balance is right. I should like to think that Arthur Ransome would approve very much of what we are doing in the House tonight.
    Primacy has been touched on more than once, and it became a major issue when the Bill was in Committee. We have become obsessed by it, and sometimes it has diverted us from what we are talking about. The reason for the Bill and the Broads Authority is the management, restoration and conservation of the whole of the Broads area. Surely it does not need spelling out more clearly than that. All the interests in the Broads have to be carefully managed. That will be the task of the new Broads Authority. Continual talk about primacy and which is the most important of the various interests in the Broads has deflected us to some extent from our purpose, which is the establishment of the authority, whose job will be to make sure that all those different interests are carefully balanced.
    Mr. John Garrett: How does the hon. Gentleman square what he has just said with a letter dated July 1987 from the Council for the Protection of Rural England which states that the council supports "very strongly" amendment No. 3—in the hon. Gentleman's name, I believe—which, in the proposed statutory duties of the new Broads Authority, gives priority to conservation.
    Mr. Lord: The hon. Gentleman may recall that I withdrew the amendment precisely for the reasons that I

    1035
    am now giving. At one stage, many people clearly thought that it was important that one particular interest should dominate our proceedings. In my view, that would have been quite wrong. The whole purpose of the Bill is to establish the Broads Authority, and the authority's purpose is carefully to balance the interests in the Broads area. That will not be an easy task, but I believe that the authority will tackle it well. As other hon. Members have said, the Government have got the balance about right.
    I hope that sensible legislation, coupled with education, will enable us to enhance and protect our surroundings, and not just in the Norfolk Broads, where I am sure the Bill and the authority will work. In the briefest of asides, however, I must say that I sometimes despair when I stand on the Terrace of the House of Commons and look at our great River Thames full of flotsam and jetsam and filth. Clearly we have a long way to go in other directions, too.
    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the competent way in which he has steered the Bill through the House, and I wish the Bill a speedy passage in another place, and on to the statute book.
    11.27 pm
    Mr. David Porter: Delighted as I am to follow my hon. Friends, I find myself in the unfortunate position of having heard my best phrases used already. As an hon. Member with a strong constituency interest in the Bill, however, it is appropriate that I should echo and support the remarks of other hon. Members.
    When I was a child, in the days before local government reorganisation, the slogan of the old Lowestoft borough was that Lowestoft was the town where broadland meets the sea—and it still is. Given the strong constituency basis of my interest in the Bill I share my hon. Friends' regret that I did not come to the House at an earlier stage in its proceedings.
    There is a strong feeling in my neck of the Broads that at last we are able to move ahead quickly and see the authority in position. It may have been as long as 10 years ago that a television documentary entitled, I think "Lullaby for Broadland" sounded warning bells, and not only in the ecological and environmental lobbies.
    Mention has been made of the balance of interests, and f share my hon. Friends' view that the right balance has been struck. The long history of the Bill has been a marriage of' interests—more like a harmonisation of fiscal frontiers marriage than a Joan Collins marriage. Provided that it is presented not as another quango or expensive talking shop—or, indeed, another tier of local government—the people of East Anglia, I believe, are ready to accept the new authority as the only co-ordinated and sensible chance of a grand design for the Suffolk and Norfolk broads.
    In Committee, I referred to a carbuncle on the landscape in Oulton Broad—the ruin of boat Yellowtail. My hon. Friend said that he would report back to me. For all the good work that the Broads Authority may do in its area, it is possible that just outside the boundaries there may be an environmental nightmare over which the authority will have no control. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister said that there would be an exclusion clause taking out the area where the boat Yellowtail is situated and other parts of Lake Lothing around Lowestoft. I imagine that that will now be introduced in another place.
    1036
    When we send the Bill on its way, my hon. Friend the Minister will have the distinction of being remembered in East Anglia as the man who gave birth to the Broads Authority—or who artificially inseminated the system to produce it. The resulting animal will have to be very real. It will have to be very effective and, if not loved, it will have to be accepted on all sides. If it fails, parts of Suffolk and Norfolk will become a devastated wasteland that will make the October hurricane look like a storm in a teacup.
    11.29 pm
    Mr. Spearing: This is the last opportunity for lion. Members to comment on the Bill. I do not think that the balance is right. Greater attention should be paid to ecological equilibrium. The wording of the Bill is not, therefore, as it should be, but we shall have to see what happens in practice.
    I am a little suspicious about the words
    "promoting the enjoyment of the Broads by the public".
    We want the public to enjoy themselves, but I hope that those words will not result in the Broads Authority being turned into a publicity agency for an already very well-known area. The people who go to the Broads, perhaps in increasing numbers, will need to be appropriately accommodated. That phrase may ring a few bells in some places.
    There has been frequent mention of commercial pressures, especially on those who hire out boats. The traditional Norfolk boat yards were run by local people. However, there has been a change during the past 10 years, or more. National bodies have bought up boat yards. I refer to breweries, betting shop chains, caravan manufacturers, caravan site owners and a large motor car concessionaire. A few years later those bodies have sold the yards. We are referring not only to the legitimate interest of local commerce. National commercial interests, which I believe are inappropriate to this area, should be looked at again, because the Bill does not offer sufficient protection against such a threat.
    The Great Yarmouth port and haven commissioners have been established for 300 years. I hope that there will be successful co-operation over their agency navigation function in the Broads.
    I do not believe that the establishment of this new authority within such a short period will necessarily yield the best results. There ought to be a period of reflection to enable good planning to take place, in partnership with the Great Yarmouth port and haven commissioners. They could improve their performance in some respects. Some of the most modern boats make the most noise. There are no noise limitations, and some of the boats have too much power. In the days of Arthur Ransome one needed only a 10 hp modified car engine to get one safely through the Yarmouth area. Now nothing less than a 50 hp water-cooled engine with reduction gear box is good enough for some people. Electricity may be the great future propellant. It would admirably suit the Broads.
    In Committee I raised fears about the dredging powers of the Great Yarmouth port and haven commissioners in schedule 5, paragraph 2. I have been given no scientific information by either the Minister or the commissioners that satisfies me. If they cannot supply it now, perhaps the matter can be dealt with in another place.
    Provided that there is good co-operation, new areas of ecological balance may be pioneered without prejudicing any of the other factors. That point should be studied by

    1037
    the new authority, and I hope that all its members will be prepared to co-operate. I understand that even a sailing boat can disturb birds. I hope that people on the extremes will realise that the best interests of all are served by cooperative enterprise. The best traditions of local government will be transferred to the new authority.
    I thank the Minister for his courtesy. He may come from a dry stable, but he has wet experience, which he has shown politically and in the practical way in which he has conducted the Bill. I hope that the Bill is improved elsewhere and that we shall be able to discuss those improvements at a later date.
    Mr. Moynihan: To the many hon. Members who in the past half an hour have rightly mentioned the question of balance, I reaffirm that in tackling the problems of the Broads it is essential that we strike a balance between the various interests. On Second Reading my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) the Minister then responsible for the Bill, declared his conviction on the need to afford equal importance to the various interests when he said:
    "Clause 2 sets out the vital balance between the interests of navigation, conservation and enjoyment by the public. All three are, in their own way, equally important, and the authority is required to have regard to all three aspects in discharging its functions."—[Official Report, 1 December 1986; Vol 106, c. 670.]
    In Committee and tonight the House has reaffirmed that view.
    I thank the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) for his kind comments. I reciprocate by congratulating him on his new appointment. We wish him well and I look forward to many debates with him on important environmental issues.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: The bicycle is still here.
    Mr. Moynihan: I am beginning to feel a lot less fit than when I took over the job as Minister for Sport.
    It is appropriate for the House to acknowledge the outstanding work of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman), who chaired the Select Committee proceedings on the Bill.
    I should congratulate the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). He gave great service on the Standing and Select Committee stages of the Bill. While I am in this eulogistic congratulatory late-night mood, hon. Members will wish me to place on record the fact that the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder), has had a long interest in the Bill, but was obviously unable to contribute during its passage through the House.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) wisely drew our attention to the Great Yarmouth port and haven commissioners. I congratulate him and them on their responsible contributions during discussions of the provisions of the Bill and throughout their many years of service to this unique area.
    I note the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shepherd) made. I have
    1038
    written to her on a number of the relevant issues that she raised this evening, but I should also add that—perhaps I did not sufficiently emphasise this point in the earlier debate—our consultations in December over proposals for landscape conservation orders were critically important. Consideration is still being given to the comments that we have received. We believe that this way forward may overtake the section 42 provisions and make it less likely that they would ever need to be used.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) mentioned a number of issues on which I have corresponded with him, and I confirm that those points will be raised in another place. I thank the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for his extensive contributions both in Committee and in the House. It is useful to benefit from his experience, and I know that all hon. Members thank him and congratulate him on the depth of his analysis and on his useful contributions.
    The purpose of the Bill, as amended, is to establish new statutory arrangements by which the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads can be conserved for the enjoyment of all who treasure this unique area. There is general recognition in the House, emphasised by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) in his speech, of the need for a new statutory authority to manage the land and water spaces in a harmonious way. That is necessary if the continuing deterioration in the ecology of the area is to be halted and reversed.
    The existing non-statutory Broads Authority has done valuable work and I pay tribute to its efforts. However, more is needed and the sooner the new authority can be established, the sooner we can hope to gain the real improvements that all concerned, boating and commercial interests no less than nature conservationists, wish to see. No one doubts that they all share a common interest in preserving, protecting and enhancing the Broads. The authority that the Bill seeks to establish will harness those interests to tackle the problems that must be faced.
    Happily, the Bill has commanded general all-party support, although there has not been unanimous agreement on all its details. We greatly value that support and hope that we can rely on it to secure the Bill a Third Reading and allow it to continue its parliamentary stages in another place. I commend the Bill to the House.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: The Bill has the unanimous support of the Opposition. We have only one caveat: that, if it does not succeed to the extent that the Minister and the Opposition wish the Government will support us in returning to the issue and strengthening the Bill if that is required.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

    NOTIFICATION OF CERTAIN OPERATIONS WITHIN THE BROADS

      PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION
      Ordered,
      That Sir William Clark be discharged from the Public Accounts Commission, and that Sir Peter Blaker, Sir Barney Hayhoe and Mr. Peter Shore be added to the Commission.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

  United Kingdom Space Plan
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]
  11.41 pm
  Mr. Spencer Batiste: I am grateful for an opportunity to raise what I and many colleagues believe is a very important matter. The space industry has not often occupied parliamentary time, but for any nation that aspires to a modern base in research and technology it is an essential ingredient. Space provides the indispensable means of telecommunications on a worldwide scale. It offers unparalleled opportunities for earth and atmospheric observation and activity over a wide range of civil and defence applications. It is the breeding ground for the development of a huge spread of technologies ranging from materials to artificial intelligence, from propulsion systems to human life sciences. It is the best and, in some respects, the only way in which we can extend our knowledge of the universe and of our place in it. It is perhaps uniquely capable of firing the imagination and ambition of our best young people to embark upon a scientific or engineering career.
  Last week during Trade and Industry Questions, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in response to my specific question, confirmed his acceptance of the importance of the space industry and the Government's willingness to spend substantial sums on it. He also reiterated the Government's commitment to obtaining value for money in public expenditure. That is certainly not controversial — at least as far as Conservative Members are concerned.
  However, great controversy was aroused during the summer, leading to the resignation of the director-general of the British National Space Centre. My purpose in seeking this debate is to clarify the Government's policy towards the space industry in the run-up to the important European Space Agency council meeting and to demonstrate that there is strong feeling in all parts of the House that the important opportunities now open to the United Kingdom should not be lost to other countries.
  It is, of course, well known that Governments of other countries currently spend rather more than us on their space Industries. In 1986, France spent $934 million, Japan $804 million, Germany $545 million, Italy $460 million, and even India spent $183 million. We spent $174 million. The USA spends as much as the rest put together, and the USSR spends considerably more than that.
  I quote those figures not because size necessarily reflects the quality of the spending, but to underline certain important realities that we must recognise. First, space should be seen as a high priority, not only in developed but in developing countries. There is no obvious political or technological reason why we should be the odd man out. Secondly, the Governments of the countries mentioned are actively involved in what is an extremely regulated, highly complex, inter-active and essentially long-term industry. Thirdly, the European nations together can barely begin to compete with the USA or the USSR, and individually they have no chance.
  For Britain, space poses the challenge that we must get our act together effectively both at home and in the wider, international context. At home, 18 different Government Departments, councils and research organisations are involved in space. We must add to that 67 universities,
  1040
  polytechnics and other institutes and more than 300 companies. If we are to get value for money in our spending we need the co-ordinating thrust of the British National Space Centre and the focus of an appropriate national space plan. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take this opportunity to reaffirm the Government's commitment to the continuation and development of both.
  As regards overseas involvement, I have had the opportunity, at first hand, to see many aspects of the ESA's work. In common with any international organisation, it could be improved. However, we must not ignore the great contribution that it has made to the development of the European space industry from an initial low base. We cannot afford to undermine its continued development. Without that agency we would be submerged under the weight of United States spending and technology. I hope that the Minister understands and appreciates that. Of course, that does not mean that we have to accept or participate in every optional programme that the ESA puts forward, or that the mandatory science programme should not be subjected to the same rigorous scrutiny as we would impose at home.
  It must make sense for us to concentrate our financial, technological and scientific endeavour in those areas where we excel and to ensure that the ESA does not overreach itself with over-ambitious targets. We must also recognise that our partners have their own legitimate objectives. They would resent any suggestion that either we wanted to be free riders on the back of their investment or that, because we were not prepared to back their investment and commitment, we were prepared to inhibit their identification and achievement of realistic objectives involving a quantitative and qualitative leap forward.
  I am not suggesting that the ESA programmes should be an alternative to national and bilateral activity both with our ESA partners and with others. These are and must remain complementary, and the priority and balance between them is a matter for judgment. I accept that that is easy to say, but difficult to translate into the building bricks of a national plan, and especially so in Britain when so many different Departments are involved.
  However, we cannot afford to let something as important as the space industry to fall between the cracks of inter-Departmental funding, with each Department fighting its corner for its own research and development, but without objective and strategic comparisons as to quality, priority and merit.
  In answer to parliamentary questions last week the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that he had now received the advice of the Advisory Committee on Science and Technology—ACOST—on R and I) priorities. When will that be published? Will my hon. Friend ensure that there will be opportunity for parliamentary debate, as it is a matter of great interest and importance.
  Much of the controversy of recent months has been over the level of funding for space. I am not clear that there need be, in practical effect, a serious difference. Roy Gibson, the former director-general of the British National Space Centre, and others argue for a minimum Government spend of about £200 million to sustain a viable United Kingdom space industry. In that they appear to be supported by the industry, although it is divided to some extent as to how that funding should be allocated. The industry's fundamental point is that there

  1041
  is a minimum threshold of commitment below which we will not be able to realise the potential that we have already developed. It believes that our current commitment falls somewhere below that threshold.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster appears to be arguing that the Government are already giving substantial support to space—this year £112 million—as well as to civilian R and D in a wider context and that the United Kingdom industry should do more. That is certainly true. My right hon. and learned Friend is seeking the re-evaluation of R and D priorities in general, and that is sensible. He is concerned about the strategic and financial thinking of the ESA and some of the proposals for its new programme, especially the development of the Hermes mini shuttle and the man-rating of Ariane 5. In that, he is not alone.
  The two points of view are not necessarily incompatible. It would therefore be very helpful if my hon. Friend could clarify further the Department's current thinking. I appreciate the difficulties, in terms of timing, that that may impose, but it is important that the industry should have clear guidelines for the future.
  To which areas of the United Kingdom space industry does my hon. Friend attach primary importance? Is he willing to support new bilateral space collaboration such as that under the agreement signed with the USSR during the Prime Minister's visit there in March, especially in areas in which the Soviets are showing interest in our expertise in, for example, space biomedicine?
  Will my hon. Friend continue to support the HOTOL project, at least to final proof-of-concept stage? It could be the most significant development of all in the long term.
  Mr. Timothy Wood: HOTOL seems to me to be one of those projects where it is clear that Britain could develop something worthwhile in conjunction with European partners. It would be tragic if lack of funding from Britain meant that such projects, which could be very beneficial, were set aside.
  Mr. Batiste: My hon. Friend makes his point strongly and demonstrates the breadth of support for the space industry in the United Kingdom.
  If a valid case is made out, and if the private sector is willing to contribute more, will my right hon. Friend the Minister support Government funding for the space industry beyond the current £112 million? Will his decisions be incorporated into a revised space plan that will help to provide much needed focus and direction for the industry? The answers to those questions will be awaited eagerly by all who believe that we cannot afford to opt out of the space industry and back away from the sharp edge of so many new technologies.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that he wants the Department of Trade and Industry to be the Department of enterprise. He well knows that successful enterprise requires vision, consistency and application on the one hand and adequate working capital on the other. I and many others would like to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister tonight whether the Department of Trade and Industry is willing to play its part in this process.
  11.51 pm
  Mr. Michael Marshall: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) and my hon. Friend the Minister for allowing me to speak. I support everything that my hon. Friend has said. He is secretary of the all-party space committee and has put in tremendous efforts to encourage space research as, for example, at Sheffield. His words carry great weight and I support them.
  I have two questions for my hon. Friend the Minister. First, does he recognise the need to allay disquiet at the apparent inflexibility in the Government's stance on space, as I believe the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has done in an article in The Times today? Secondly, will he argue that the inflexibility is more apparent than real? Will he, for example, confirm that, whatever the reservations about the European Space Agency's current thinking—I share reservations about the somewhat unrealistic budgeting and its seeming inability to come to terms with what many of us feel is the way ahead, namely, bringing industry and ESA funding together—the Government will consider pledging financial support for proposals which are essentially long term? We must resolve the problem of industry's short-term need for a return and the long-term support necessary for programmes such as Columbus, HOTOL and remote sensing.
  A commitment in principle to support such programmes will not lock the Government in, and anything that the Minister can say about it will be helpful. I am sure that he, like all hon. Members who study these matters, knows that there is no alternative to Government commitment combined with the work of industry to take research and development into the commercial phase. We earnestly hope that the Government will reaffirm their commitment to that tonight.
  11.54 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) for raising the subject and for speaking with a great deal of conviction and from an informed base. I pay tribute to his work on the all-party space committee. On a local basis—indeed, on an almost constituency basis—he has been involved in the movements at Sheffield university to bring together various disciplines to provide expertise in space technologies in which, in partnership with our friends on the other side of Eastern Europe he has a great deal of interest.
  I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood) who, as ever, spoke up not just for his constituents' interests but for his personal conviction that Britain should seriously think about the early appraisals now being made regarding HOTOL. That point has been echoed by hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall).
  The question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel is timely, almost to an excruciating extent. He is asking me to provide some of the finer details of the matters that our right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will need to deploy when he goes to the Hague on 9 and 10 November. To begin to answer his question on how flexible we shall be would do my right hon. and learned Friend a disservice. I agree with my hon. Friend on whether one can apply

  1043
  short-term considerations to space. We wish to see a much greater reference to commercial considerations. We believe that many of them have been lost in the political movement for a bigger space programme within Europe. But we have never pretended—I said this to the space community at Brighton two or three weeks ago—that one can judge such programmes on a traditional three-month profit and loss account basis. It is precisely because we have appreciated that fact that public money has been put forward on the programme. Many long-term benefits are to be obtained.
  This is a particularly interesting time for us to discuss space as my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be attending a crucial European Space Agency meeting on Monday and Tuesday of next week. I therefore welcome the opportunity to make a statement about Government policy on space.
  Space is an important industry. It is a central technology driver, demanding exceptional standards of quality control, improved production processes and expert project management. There is considerable cross-fertilisation between it and other advanced sectors, for example, robotics, avionics and power generation. Commercially, the rewards from space could be great. A promising start has been made in the communications sector, about which I shall say more in a few moments. There is also commercial potential in other respects such as earth observation, but exploitation will involve high risks and will be over a long timescale. There are many other sectors in which space has, or will have, an impact, including defence, education, and science.
  Although space activities are important, they are also, as my hon. Friend recognised, expensive. Therefore, we have to tailor our investment to reasonable objectives within the reach of our available resources. Against that background, the main thrust of our public expenditure for the past decade has been towards collaborative developments in the European Space Agency, supplemented by a complementary national programme and a number of bilateral initiatives.
  To date, this policy has worked well. Our participation in ESA has led to our communications satellite industry being one of the world's leaders. My hon. Friend rightly homed in on that point. British companies have led the consortia which have built ESA's communications satellites, and have gone on to win contracts for various operational satellites. The Ministry of Defence has ordered three Skynet IV communications satellites from a consortium of British Aerospace and Marconi. The consortium has also won a NATO contract for two such satellites, thus breaking the American monopoly in NATO satellites which has existed since the early 1970s. British Aerospace is leading the industrial team for the second generation of satellites for Inmarsat, and major subsystems are being supplied from Britain for the new Intelsat and Eutelsat satellites.
  I should point out that, as my hon. Friend mentioned, the United Kingdom is also a major user of communications satellites. We are among the top three investors in each of the major international organisations in that area — Intelsat, Eutelsat and Inmarsat, which together provide the means of linking the world's 500 million-odd telephones, and which bring television to a world audience of half a billion. The scientists tell me that
  1044
  it is probably the largest man-made machine ever constructed. British Telecom is the largest user of satellite capacity in Europe.
  Another excellent example of the United Kingdom's participation in ESA is the Giotto satellite's encounter with Halley's comet last year. British Aerospace was the lead contractor for the construction of the satellite for the ESA mission, and British scientists were responsible for two of the 10 experiments on board.
  The national programme has concentrated on developing the technology for commercial applications. That has, for example, led to Pilkingtons becoming the world's largest supplier of the glass used in satellite solar cells.
  We are involved in a number of bilateral programmes, mainly in space science. We have arrangements with several countries to provide a framework for those collaborations, including agreements with China, India, and the one that my hon. Friend mentioned with the Soviet Union. Under this last agreement, we are already supporting British participation in the planning stages of a Russian mission to Phobos, one of the moons of Mars and a proposed Russian X-ray space telescope.
  When we set up the British national space centre in 1985, its immediate tasks were to maximise the benefits to the United Kingdom from existing activities and to develop a space plan that would take into account the needs of the various users of space. The advice that we received made clear the substantial cost of maintaining our share in ESA's ambitious and expensive proposals. The fact that ESA is poised to embark on an extensive new long-term plan has caused us to take a more rigorous look at the cost-effectiveness of our policy.
  In considering the proposed increase, we of course had to view the costs against the potential benefits of alternative uses of the funds in support of other areas of United Kingdom industry. We already spend some £4·5 billion each year on research and development, and we are not able to find more resources. In a statement to the House on 23 July in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that the Government had decided against switching funds to space. She also suggested that if the private sector was interested in space research, it should come forward with further resources.
  Industry's initial response has been positive and discussions have begun between my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the space companies and the British National Space Centre. The purpose of those discussions is to establish what the United Kingdom wants to get out of involvement in space, and how that can best be achieved through a much closer involvement of the private sector. The outcome of those discussions will clearly influence our views on many of the questions that my hon. Friend has raised, for example, on the targeting of space funding and the future structure and organisation of the BNSC.
  I am sorry to say that over the last 12 months the ESA proposals have become even more expensive as it has recast the cost estimates of its ambitious schemes. The cost of Hermes, for example, has doubled. The overall proposals that the director-general of ESA will be putting to Ministers in the Hague next week would involve an increase in expenditure by a factor of two and a half over the next five years. My right hon. and learned Friend the

  1045
  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will represent the United Kingdom at that meeting and will seek to introduce some realism into the debate.
  Britain is one of the founder members of ESA and our membership to date has been very worth while. We are anxious to play a constructive part in developing it sensibly, but I do not think that even the most enthusiastic supporter of space expenditure, including my hon. Friend, would believe that we should pursue space programmes regardless of cost. I am afraid that we do not consider the balance, scale and implementation of the present proposals to be sensible. We also doubt whether it would be possible for European industry, from its present capacity level, to take on such a massive increase of work over the next five years without incurring serious risks of wasteful or even dangerous error. Given the continuing uncertainty on some of the programmes, we do not see the justification for decisions on all of them on 9 and 10 November. It is essential that we take stock and ensure that we are all clear about objectives, priorities and methods of operation.
  We are looking for sound investments, some of which will of course be long-term, which are likely to benefit us in some way — industrially, technologically, commercially, scientifically or whatever. We see no justification for entering what some supporters have called a space race and giving ourselves technical objectives heavily influenced by political motives such as being able to put a man in space by the end of the century. This would be a return to the era of the race to the moon, which was a spectacular illustration of man's ingenuity, but which cost vast amounts of money without commensurate commercial or economic return.
  In The Hague, we shall therefore be asking what is the purpose of the Hermes proposal. What is man going to do when he gets into space? Is it cost-effective? Is there a follow through into the next century? Or is it likely that the next generation of safer launchers, which could possibly be HOTOL, will mean that the Hermes development is a blind alley? Above all, what will be the cost? I have already indicated our concern about Hermes, the estimated cost of which has doubled in the past 12 months, and there is good reason to believe that the present figure of over £3 billion is still too low.
  As I have said, before ESA makes a decision on the proposed increase in the scale of its activities, it is essential that we should be clear what the objectives are. For some countries in Europe, the motivation is, I am afraid, political. They appear to believe that Europe should seek to keep up with the American and Russian space programmes, for the greater glory of Europe and for their own national prestige. It is this approach which has led to demands that Europe's top priority should be to develop an independent capability to put man in space by the year 2000.
  There is also the objective of advancing pure science; there are areas of science which can only be advanced by observations from space, or experiments carried out in space. But space science is very expensive. The money for a single space experiment could fund many teams of experimenters on the ground. We must decide how large a share of all our science budgets we are willing to put into ESA's science programme.
  1046
  There are also potential economic benefits from space research and development. These are of two types. First, there are the technological advances which are achieved in other areas, for example in materials research and software development. Though such spin-offs would not in themselves justify a space programme, it is important that we consider them in structuring our programmes and in encouraging industry to exploit them.
  Secondly, and more important, there can be direct economic benefit in terms of programmes providing real commercial returns on the capital investment. These may be profits for the aerospace companies producing the hardware, or more likely for the providers of new or improved services. Telecommunications satellites have already reached this stage, and it is possible that satellites which observe the earth from space will provide the next example.
  The Government's view is that greater priority should be placed on the commercial, industrial and ecomomic benefits, but our main concern is that the European countries should debate these priorities. It is only by agreeing what we want to achieve that we will be able to develop a coherent long-term plan and establish an appropriate level of funding.
  Unfortunately, the European Space Agency has not so far helped Governments to agree on priorities. The present long-term plan seems to be little more than an accumulation of the various aspirations held by different European interests, resulting in a strategy designed to pursue every objective regardless of cost.
  ESA is presently run as a pure research and development organisation — one where almost all projects are wholly Government funded. It has seen its role in technology as enabling the development of capabilities which member states can then exploit nationally in separate programmes. The result has been that it is largely divorced from the market place and there is little, if any, commercial or industrial input to its decision-making process.
  Three main projects are being worked on by the ESA officials. The first is Ariane 5 — a new heavy lift launcher—part of the justification for which is to be able to launch the second project, Hermes. This is the proposed spaceplane which would enable Europe to launch its own astronauts. The third is Columbus, the proposed European contribution to the United States-led international space station. The United Kingdom is interested in the Columbus programme, but negotiations with the Americans are still continuing and it is not even firmly established what the European elements will be. It therefore seems premature for ESA to be pressing us to commit to a 10-year development programme which will cost at least £2·5 billion.
  Last year, ESA spent about 1 billion ecu — about £700 million. Its proposals would increase this to more than 2·5 billion ecu, or more than £1·75 billion, by 1992. If this were agreed, maintaining our position in ESA could mean tripling our contribution in cash terms over just five years. We currently contribute about £80 million a year to ESA, and spend about a further £30 million domestically. That is not insignificant. If we went along with the ESA proposals and backed this with corresponding increases in national support, it would require an extra £200 million a year from the United Kingdom taxpayer.
  An emphasis on commercial exploitation does not mean a negative approach to projects. For example, the

  1047
  main restraint on commercial use of space at present is the extremely high cost of putting satellites into orbit with conventional launchers. There is, therefore, a need for a new generation of launchers which can make space more affordable. One of the most promising ideas in this area is HOTOL, a revolutionary——
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at eleven minutes past Twelve o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Life Sentence Prisoners
  Mr. Iain Mills
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of prisoners serving life sentences in prisons in 1979, 1983, 1985 and 1987.

  Mr. John Patten
  The number of prisoners serving life sentences was 2,339 on 30 June 1987, the most recent date for which figures are available. Details of the average population for each of the previous 10 years are published annually in "Prison Statistics, England and Wales," at table 1.4 of the latest issue, for 1986 (Cm. 210) a copy of which is in the Library.

  Children (Abduction)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of children being detained under the port stop procedures under the Child Abduction Act 1984 have been reported to him; and how many of these cases were instances where children had been abducted by those who were not related to them.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None. The Home Office relinquished direct responsibility for port stop procedures on 2 May 1986; the responsibility now lies with chief officers of police and no statistics are kept centrally.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what liaison exists between British Police forces and those of other European countries relating to the abduction of children; and what machinery exists for reporting of the abduction of minors.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Liaison between British police forces and those of other European countries is conducted through normal interpol channels. Within this country all police forces are alerted to the abduction of minors through the police national computer.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Jim Callaghan
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will take steps to bring special constables into the disciplinary and grievance procedure which applies to other police constables; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what representations he has received seeking the right for special constables to have an appeal mechanism against chief constables' decisions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are no plans to introduce a discipline code for special constables since it would be difficult to apply such a code to voluntary unpaid officers. We have had no recent representations in favour of an appeal system other than from the hon. Member.

  Private Investigators
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Her Majesty's Government propose to introduce legislation to impose statutory controls on the private investigation industry.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. The Government continue to support and encourage non-statutory self-regulation for professional investigators as we do for the private security industry.

  Nationality
  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking in order to harmonise British nationality law with similar laws in European Community countries.

  Mr. Renton
  There are no Community proposals to harmonise nationality laws and we have no plans to amend the British Nationality Act 1981.

  Research Specialists
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of operational research specialists in his Department for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Hurd
  The information is as follows:

  Number of Operational Researchers as at 1 January

  Year

  Number

  1979

  1

  1980

  1

  1981

  33

  1982

  32

  1983

  30

  1984

  31

  1985

  35

  1986

  36·5

  1987

  32·5

  1 Figures not readily available.

  Political Refugees
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the normal procedure with regard to extending the residence period granted to a person likely to be imprisoned for political reasons on return to his own country, on application, after an initial grant of 12 months' residence has lapsed; and what were the considerations made in the case of Mr. Safpar Hamdani, overseas co-ordinator to the Pakistan People's Party, currently in London.

  Mr. Renton
  An individual in this position would normally be granted leave to remain for an initial period of one year and then be granted further leave to remain for a period of three years, after which permanent settlement may be granted. Further leave to remain may however be granted for shorter periods than three years where, for example, there is a possibility of a change in the circumstances which led to the initial grant of leave to remain. The normal criteria have been applied in the case of Mr. Safpar Hamdani.

  Self-Defence
  Mr. Thurnham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about the acceptable degree of self-defence available to citizens threatened by criminal acts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have received numerous inquiries and representations from right hon. and hon. Members and direct from members of the public.

  The law permits a person to use reasonable force to defend himself or to prevent crime. What is reasonable will depend on all the circumstances and, if a charge is brought, will be determined by the court in each specific case. The courts have held that, if a person defending himself against attack did what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken.

  The right of self-defence does not imply a right to the routine carrying by the public of weapons or articles intended for use as weapons; and we are concerned to reduce the number of weapons which are carried.

  Trials (Video Technology)
  Mrs. Golding
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will give the results of his consultations on the use of video technology at trials of alleged child abusers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. Friend asked for views, first on the detailed implementation of our proposal to permit children to give evidence by closed-circuit television. We are still receiving helpful comments on this, and will bear these carefully in mind, together with observations made in this House and another place, when the time comes to implement proposals in the Criminal Justice Bill.

  Secondly, we asked for views on whether video recordings of interviews with children should be more readily admissible at trials. The responses generally show enthusiasm for this, on grounds with which we have much sympathy. But there are serious problems. In particular, a video recording which is helpful for investigative purposes is likely to present at least part of the child's evidence in a form inadmissible as evidence at the trial. Further, the benefits for the child envisaged by most responses would not be realised unless the use of the recording at the trial meant that the child need not give oral evidence. We believe, however, that it is vital in the interests of justice for the right of the defence to cross-examine the alleged victim to be preserved.

  As explained in the debate in another place on 22 October, we therefore feel that on balance easier admissibility of video recordings would not meet the twin tests of benefit to the child and interests of justice.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  City Technology College, Solihull
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many applications and inquiries have been received for places at the new city technology college in Solihull.
  702
  Mrs. Rumbold
  More than 700 inquiries have been received about admissions to the city technology college, Kingshurst. More than 300 applications have already been made.

  Boarding Schools Association
  Mr. Latham
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the recent meeting between the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) and representatives of the Boarding Schools Associations.

  Mr. Dunn
  I had a useful meeting with the association on 1 October. The secretary of the association has since written to me with a comprehensive note of points raised at the meeting, to which I have now replied.

  Expatriate Workers
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to support or assume responsibility for the education of children of expatriate workers other than for Government employees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  The Government have no such plans.

  Research Specialists
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the total number of operational research specialists in his Department, for each year since 1979.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information is as follows:

  Number

  1979

  2

  1980

  2

  1981

  2

  1982

  2

  1983

  3

  1984

  3

  1985

  3

  1986

  4

  1987

  4

WALES

  Tourism
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will indicate when his response can be expected to the report of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs on tourism in Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  I hope to respond shortly.

PRIME MINISTER

  ICL
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Prime Minister what investigations are currently going on into the affairs of ICL.

  The Prime Minister
  Investigations under the Companies Act are matters for the Department of Trade and Industry. Investigations in relation to defence issues
  703
  are matters for the Ministry of Defence. Similarly, the Inland Revenue and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise have responsibility for their own investigations. Most such investigations are of a confidential nature for obvious reasons.

  Customs Barriers
  Mr. Hood
  asked the Prime Minister what assessment she has made of the advantages likely to accrue from the removal of all customs barriers on trade between the United Kingdom and the rest of the European Economic Community by 1992.

  The Prime Minister
  Customs barriers add to the costs of exporting and hinder the development of trade with the rest of the European Community. Tackling them and other barriers will increase opportunities for British business by creating a single market of 320 million people.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Summary Cases
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Attorney-General if his guidelines as to disclosure of previous inconsistent statements and unused material will apply in summary cases.

  The Attorney-General
  The guidelines issued by my predecessor in 1981 concern the disclosure to the defence of "unused material" in cases to be tried on indictment. There are not separate guidelines as to the disclosure of previous inconsistent statements. However, the term "unused material" includes all witness statements that have not otherwise been served on the defence, whether or not the maker of the statement is to give evidence for the prosecution. Thus, previous inconsistent written statements are covered by the 1981 outlines.

  In addition to the obligations imposed by the 1981 guidelines, the general duty to be fair requires a prosecutor to disclose to the defence any materially inconsistent statement made by a prosecution witness, written or oral, of which the prosecutor becomes aware at any stage of the proceedings. That duty applies equally to summary proceedings and to proceedings on indictment.

  Mr. Frank Larsen
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Attorney-General if the Director of Public Prosecutions will prosecute Mr. Frank Larsen for possession of a forged Ministry of Defence police warrant.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on Monday 2 November 1987 at column 510.

  "Spycatcher"
  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Attorney-General if he will give a detailed breakdown of all the legal costs accorded in the United Kingdom and outside in taking action to stop the publication of "Spycatcher."

  The Attorney-General
  I shall break down the total amount of costs to public funds to date of the court action in Australia into two categories: the first, travelling and subsistence for officials, is approximately £65,000; the second, legal fees, is approximately £369,000.
  704
  Travelling and subsistence costs have not yet been incurred in respect of the actions in New Zealand and Hong Kong; nor have they been incurred in repect of the action here against The Guardian, The Observer and The Sunday Times. The total costs to public funds to date of these actions remain as in my answer of 22 October to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Soviet Union
  Mr. Warren
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the progress of British-Soviet trade since the visit of the Prime Minister to the Soviet Union this year.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I was very encouraged by the high level of interest in trade and industrial co-operation shown by both sides during my visit to the Soviet Union for the UK/ USSR joint commission in mid-October. I was accompanied to Moscow by senior members of several United Kingdom companies and they were able to join me in calls on Soviet industrial Ministries which have now the right to engage in foreign trade directly. There is considerable potential which I hope that British companies will exploit energetically, with the full support of Her Majesty's Government, so that the increase in bilateral trade by 40 per cent. in 1990, as discussed by the Prime Minister with Mr. Ryzhkov in March, can be achieved.

  Mr. Warren
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish a table of export and import trade between each of the member states of the European Economic Community and the Soviet Union during each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement on the trends indicated therein.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The figures are in the following table. Exports from the Community have shown little variation in recent years (in dollar terms) while imports have declined in recent years mainly because of reduced oil imports and the fall in the price of oil. The Community's overall deficit with the Soviet Union is about half its level four years ago.

  European Community countries' trade with the USSR

  US$ million

  exports (fob)

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Bel./Lux.

  536

  665

  547

  632

  496

  Denmark

  87

  77

  117

  135

  184

  France

  1,556

  2,231

  1,954

  1,896

  1,532

  Germany

  3,869

  4,418

  3,800

  3,603

  4,319

  Greece

  141

  143

  121

  142

  78

  Ireland

  43

  60

  22

  36

  61

  Italy

  1,510

  1,877

  1,586

  1,528

  1,618

  Netherlands

  424

  534

  303

  342

  334

  Portugal

  52

  51

  56

  70

  51

  Spain

  220

  334

  357

  441

  238

  United Kingdom

  623

  675

  982

  696

  791

  E. C. 12

  9,061

  11,063

  9,846

  9,521

  9,703

  imports (cif)

  Bel./Lux.

  1,468

  1,154

  1,858

  1,256

  1,047

  Denmark

  328

  271

  331

  286

  205

  France

  2,858

  2,811

  2,550

  2,453

  2,647

  Germany

  4,473

  4,444

  4,894

  4,630

  4,204

  Greece

  221

  247

  508

  532

  284

  705

  exports (fob)

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Ireland

  54

  50

  51

  51

  41

  Italy

  3,541

  3,593

  4,039

  2,980

  2,324

  Netherlands

  2,571

  2,627

  2,207

  2,328

  1,046

  Portugal

  101

  84

  61

  55

  51

  Spain

  493

  495

  537

  383

  299

  United Kingdom

  1,129

  1,105

  1,142

  939

  1,018

  E. C. 12

  17,235

  16,882

  18,177

  15,893

  13,166

  Source: OECD Series 'A' (via I. P. Sharp).

  British Caledonian and British Airways
  Mr. Flynn
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will make it his policy to take into account the potential impact of a British airline industry dominated by one carrier operating from both Heathrow and Gatwick on Cardiff and other regional airports before making his decision on the proposed merger of British Caledonian and British Airways.

  Mr. Sackville
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will take into account the potential impact of a British airline industry dominated by one carrier, operating from Heathrow and Gatwick, on Manchester and other regional airports before making his decision on the proposed take over of British Caledonian by British Airways.

  Mr. Atkinson
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will take into account the potential impact of a British airline industry dominated by one carrier, operating from both Heathrow and Gatwick, on Bournemouth International Airport and other regional airports in making his decision on the proposed take-over of British Caledonian by British Airways.

  Mr. Cran
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if, when he takes the decision on the British Airways/British Caledonian merger, he will take into account the potential effect of a large British carrier on smaller independent air lines and their employees.

  Mr. Maude
  The proposed merger is being investigated by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Only if the commission concludes that a merger might be expected to operate against the public interest does my right hon. and noble Friend have the power to intervene to prevent or impose conditions on it. In such cases, he will take into account all relevant considerations in deciding what action, if any, may be appropriate.

  Biodegradable Products
  Mr. Beggs
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what incentive Her Majesty's Government are giving to industry to encourage the development of biodegradable products; and whether Her Majesty's Government have plans to introduce legislation to require that biodegradable products are introduced to replace plastic products where possible.

  Mr. Butcher
  The Government have no plans to introduce such legislation at this time.

  Normal channels of Government funding are available to encourage work in this area. We support and are in
  706
  discussions with the plastics industry about the use of degradable materials. They are being encouraged to employ them when it is commercially viable to do so.

  In October 1986 a workshop was held on the recycling of plastics which was attended by the industry and other interested bodies. This has been successful in creating a more positive attitude towards recycling.

  Regional Policy
  Ms. Armstrong
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has completed his review of regional policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State and I have been reviewing all our Department's activities since we were appointed to our present posts and we will continue to do so. We have recently established new objectives for the Department and we are considering the best application of those objectives in the field of regional policy.

  Toys (Safety)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will take steps to secure the safety of toys to be made available for sale during the pre-Christmas shopping period, and in particular to ensure that in future all toys sold within the United Kingdom should conform with BS 5665; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  My Department plans to run a toy safety promotion campaign in November and December aimed at putting across an effective message during the Christmas peak buying period.

  The Government have no plans to make compliance with BS 5665 mandatory. We are effectively prevented from doing so under the standstill provisions of article 9(2) of the EC directive 83/189/EEC because a proposal for an EC toy safety directive is now in the final stages of negotiation.

  Toys supplied in the United Kingdom must comply with the requirements of the Toys (Safety) Regulations 1974, which cover the main hazards. The general safety requirement of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 applies to hazards not covered by the regulations. As a published standard BS 5665 is relevant for the purpose of the general safety requirement.

  Trading Standards officers
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any proposals for the removal of trading standards officers and their delegated functions from local authority control; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  There are no plans to remove trading standards officers and their delegated functions from local authority control. Local enforcement enables trading standards officers to respond quickly to the public, to take immediate action and to provide for the particular needs of local industry. There is no evidence that this can be achieved more efficiently or economically.

  Monopolies and Mergers Commission
  Mr. Hood
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will list the cases in which Her Majesty's

  707
  Government have withdrawn from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission mergers referred for its consideration, as from 1979;

  (2) in what cases of proposed mergers a referral to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission can be withdrawn.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. and noble Friend has no powers, under the Fair Trading Act 1973, to withdraw a merger or proposed merger from consideration by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission once he has referred it to the commission. However under section 75 of the Act, if, in the course of its investigations on a merger reference, it appears to the commission that a merger proposal has been abandoned it may, if the Secretary of State consents, lay the reference aside. Since 1979 the following merger references have been laid aside:

  Proposed Merger

  Date of reference

  Grand Metropolitan Hotels Ltd./Coral Leisure Group Ltd.

  17 October 1980

  Argyll Foods Ltd./Linfood Holdings Ltd.

  10 November 1981

  Rowntree Mackintosh/Huntley and Palmer Foods plc

  16 March 1982

  Prosper de Mulder Ltd./Thomas Borthwick and Sons plc

  16 September 1982

  Redland plc/Ibstock Johnson plc

  28 January 1983

  Knoll International Holdings Inc./Sotheby Parke Bernet

  4 May 1983

  Scottish and Newcastle Breweries plc/J. W. Cameron and Company Ltd.

  5 June 1984

  Imperial Group plc/Permaflex Ltd.

  10 April 1985

  McCorquodale plc/Richard Clay pic

  23 August 1985

  Imperial Group plc/United Biscuits (Holdings) plc

  11 February 1986

  Guinness plc/The Distillers Company plc

  14 February 1986

  Cope Allman International plc/Firth Cleveland Strip

  3 April 1986

  Hillsdown Holdings plc/S and W Berisford plc

  19 May 1986

  London International Group plc/ Wedgwood plc

  9 June 1986

  Strong and Fisher (Holdings) plc/Garnar Booth plc

  2 November 1986

  Gulf Resources and Chemical Corporation/Imperial Continental Gas Association

  9 December 1986

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Hardy
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to make decisions or offer further opinion to the European Economic Community in regard to proposals to secure further contraction of the steel industry in the United Kingdom and in the other member states.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Commission's proposals on steel policy were considered by Ministers of the Twelve at the

  Table 1

  United Kingdom direct investment in developing countries1

  £ million

  21981

  21982

  21983

  1984

  1985

  Acquisition of share and loan capital in companies in the developing countries

  341

  230

  658

  978

  1,304

  Disposal of share and loan capital in companies in the developing countries

  25

  613

  148

  101

  202

  Reinvested Earnings from direct investments in developing countries

  590

  540

  605

  1,158

  761

  Net Total

  906

  157

  1,115

  2,035

  1,863

  708
  Industry Council on 21 September. The Council agreed to invite the Commission to appoint a group of three wise persons to advise the Council on how adequate commitments to the reduction of production capacity can be obtained. The wise persons have been asked to report by Mid-November. The next meeting of the Industry Council is scheduled for 8 December.

  Mr. Hardy
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the proportion by which the steel industry has contracted both in terms of production volume and job loss in Britain and in the other member states of the EEC since 1979.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information requested can be found in the "Iron and Steel Statistical Yearbook 1986" and the "Iron and Steel Quarterly Statistics" published by Eurostat, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Third World
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total value of invisible exports, invisible imports and the invisible balance of trade, between Britain and the third World, broken down into oil-exporting countries and the rest of the world, in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Atkins
  Comprehensive annual data on invisibles relating to the areas mentioned are not available.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the totals of new investment, reinvestment and disinvestment by Britain in the Third World and by the Third world from Britain, in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Atkins
  The available information relates to overseas direct investment. The value of acquisitions and disposals of share capital by UK companies in the companies in the developing countries and the value of reinvested profits in the overseas concerns are given in Table 1. The value of acquisitions and disposals of share capital of UK companies and of profits reinvested in the UK by companies in the developing countries are shown in table 2. The data relating to outward direct investment will be published in approximately two months time in Business Monitor MA4 1985.

  The net totals shown in tables 1 and 2 include only those items requested and hence exclude changes in the levels of current account and long-term loan balances and in branch/head office indebtedness, all of which are normally included in the published series for foreign direct investment in Business Monitor MA4.
  709
  1 Developing countries are defined as Asia, Africa (excluding South Africa), Caribbean, Central and South America, Oceania and Yugoslavia.

  2 Excludes oil companies.

  Table 2

  Direct investment by the developing countries1 in the United Kingdom

  £ million

  21981

  21982

  21983

  1984

  1985

  Acquisition of United Kingdom companies' share capital by companies in the developing countries

  238

  87

  87

  71

  —

  Disposal of United Kingdom companies' share capital by companies in the developing countries

  10

  —

  5

  26

  —

  Re-invested earnings from developing countries direct investments in the United Kingdom

  35

  6

  27

  -2

  102

  Net Total

  263

  93

  109

  43

  239

  1 and 2 See table 1.

  —Not available.

  Research Specialists
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the total number of operational research specialists in his Department, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Butcher
  The number of operational research specialists in this Department for each year since 1979 was as follows:

  Number

  1979

  6

  1980

  7

  1981

  11

  1982

  9

  1983

  9

  1984

  6

  1985

  6

  1986

  10

  1987

  11

  Group Accounts
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made in respect of the incorporation of the European Community's seventh directive on group accounts into British law; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  My Department is preparing detailed legislative proposals in the light of responses to a consultation document. The necessary legislation should be part of the next Companies Bill.

  Company Accounts (Disclosure of Liabilities)
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he intends to introduce legislation to restrict
  710
  the ability of companies not to make disclosure of liabilities through their accounts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  My Department is considering the issues raised by the practice of keeping assets and liabilities off a company's balance sheet with the Accounting Standards Committee and other bodies with a close interest in this topic. This will be taken into account in drafting changes to company law which will be made to implement the EC seventh company law directive.

  Semi-Conductors
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has any plans to assist the semi-conductor industry to play a part in joint European research initiatives, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  Assistance to joint European collaborative research in semi-conductors will be available through the second phase of the European Community's ESPRIT programme, which is now in the final stages of preparation. The Department is active in providing advice to companies wishing to participate in the programme.

  Electronics Industry
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to extend financial aid to more process-based projects in the electronics industry, along the lines of the proposed scheme to replace the Alvey programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  The IT86 report's recommendations are being considered as part of the review of priorities, in the field of research and development, for the Department of Trade and Industry.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Consumer Credit Act 1974
  Mr. Grylls
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he is in a position to make a statement on the future treatment of business lending and hiring under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

  Mr. Maude
  As stated in the White Paper "Building Businesses … not Barriers" the Government have been studying the treatment of business lending and hiring under the Act. At present the Act regulates any credit or hire agreement, within the financial limits of the Act, where the borrower or hirer is not a body corporate. It has been strongly argued by major lenders that the application of the Act to some business credit is harmful both to lenders and to small businesses themselves and can give rise to anomalies. My Department has consulted organisations representing small businesses on a possible change to the Act to exclude all credit for business purposes and this proposal has been generally welcomed. We have therefore decided that the Act should be amended to exclude all credit and hire for business purposes and we will make this change to the Act, together with other changes to simplify and clarify the Act's provisions, as soon as there is a suitable opportunity.

  Telecommunications
  Mr. Jack
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is central Government's spending on telecommunications with (a) British Telecom and (b) Mercury Communications.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have been asked to reply.

  Records of expenditure on telecommunications products and services are not maintained centrally.

ENERGY

  South African Coal Industry
  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with the South African Government concerning the establishment of the office of the South African coal industry in London.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  None.

  Coal (Imports)
  Mr. Cummings
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will indicate the level of coal imports during the years 1985, 1986 and 1987 to date, through the port of Seaham; and what are the origins of such imports.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  For the purposes of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise's import statistics, Seaham is included within the port of Sunderland. Coal imports through Sunderland in 1985, 1986 and January-August 1987 (the latest period for which data are available), split by country of consignment, are shown in the table. The country of consignment is the place from which the coal was despatched to the United Kingdom and is not necessarily the country in which the coal was originally mined. No split of coal imports through Sunderland by country of origin is available.
  712

  Coal Imports through Sunderland by Country of Consignment

  Thousand tonnes

  1985

  1986

  Jan—Aug 1987

  Australia

  —

  13·6

  2·3

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  —

  11·0

  —

  France

  —

  —

  1·2

  German Democratic Republic

  12·0

  —

  —

  Federal Republic of Germany

  15·4

  10·7

  16·3

  Netherlands

  47·6

  157·0

  38·5

  Poland

  10·6

  42·3

  14·6

  Sweden

  —

  —

  4·3

  United States of America

  2·5

  8·3

  1·3

  Total

  88·2

  242·9

  78·6

  Total may not equal sum of constituents due to rounding.

  Drax Power Station
  Mr. Worthington
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy when orders will be placed for the desulphurisation plant at Drax power station.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Central Electricity Generating Board expects to be able to place the main plant contracts for the Drax power station by the end of 1988.

  Miners' Strike
  Mr. Cummings
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has on how many miners in the north-east area who were dismissed during the 1984–85 strike have not yet been re-employed.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Questions on the dismissal and reemployment of mineworkers arc matters for the management of the British Coal Corporation.

  Power Transmission Cables
  Mr. Speed
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what studies are currently taking place to determine the economic and practical feasibility of placing underground more rural electric power transmission cables.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The placing of electric power lines is in the first instance a matter for the electricity supply industry and I have therefore asked the chairman of the Electricity Council to write to my hon. Friend with the information he requested and to send me a copy of this letter.

  Research Specialists
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the total number of operational research specialists in his Department, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Parkinson
  No operational research specialists have been employed in this Department since 1979.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Pesticides
  Mr. Warren
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will review the operation of the pesticide regulations of the Food and Environmental Protection Act insofar as they relate to the need of growers

  713
  to register agro-chemicals which are off-label, with a view to suspending the regulations until such time as the applications before his Department have been cleared.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The requirements of the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986 are kept under constant review to ensure that they achieve their objectives in terms of protecting food and the environment. I also require to be satisfied that they do not impose unnecessary burdens on those who have to operate within them. I accordingly announced interim arrangements for off-label uses of pesticides in 1988 on 30 October, which give provisional approval for one year for additional uses of approved pesticides where safety considerations allow this. I believe that these arrangements will ensure that growers should have available to them appropriate products with which to treat almost all pest and disease situations. We are also giving priority to individual applications in those sectors which are not included in the interim arrangements, and I hope to be announcing definitive off-label approvals for those sectors within the next few weeks.

  Hedgerows (Removal Subsidy)
  Mr. Cummings
  asked the Secretary of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the amount of subsidy paid to farmers in Easington district for the removal of hedgerows.

  Mr. Gummer
  Grants for hedge removal were abolished in 1976 except where the removal was ancillary to drainage work. Grants even of this restrictive kind were discontinued for all new commitments on 1 December 1983. Since 1985 grants of up to 60 per cent. have been available for the provision, replacement or improvement of hedges and hedgerow trees.

  Forestry Planting Licences
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many applications for forestry planting licences in England were objected to by local authorities and other statutory bodies, respectively, in each of the last five years and 1987 to date; and how many were refused as a result.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The information is as follows:

  Number of objections from

  Year

  Number of applications object to

  Local authorities

  Other statutory bodies

  Decisions taken on these applications

  1982

  —

  —

  —

  1983

  —

  —

  1984

  3

  3

  2

  2 Refused 1 Approved

  1985

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  4

  3

  1

  1 Refused 3 Approved

  1987

  2

  2

  1

  1 Refused 1 Pending

  Dairy Inspection Charges
  Mr. David Nicholson
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what representations he has had since 1 July regarding the impact of dairy inspection charges on smaller farm units; and whether he will list the organisations making such representations;
  714
  (2) whether he has any plans to change the pattern or the administration of dairy inspection charges, insofar as these affect smaller farm units; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have received representations from individual farmers, from their Members of Parliament and from organisations such as the NFU and the MM B. The original proposals were modified to reduce the impact of charging on small producers, including those in the untreated milk sector. But the search for economies is continuing and any reduction in costs will be passed on to producers.

  Trade Balance
  Mr. Leighton
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current United Kingdom trade balance with the rest of the European Economic Community in agricultural produce.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 28 October 1987]: The latest available information is given in the following table.

  Trade between the United Kingdom and other European Community countries—Agricultural products

  January to December 1986

  £ million

  Exports

  3,003

  Imports

  5,706

  Balance

  -2,703

  During the first eight months of 1987, exports have risen by 20 per cent. compared with the same period in 1986, and imports by only 8 per cent.

  North Sea (Pollution)
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what information he has as to the amount of pollution in the North sea caused by sea dumping by Britain;

  (2) what amount of waste and other materials Britain dumps in the North sea.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 2 November 1987]: The amount of waste and other materials disposed of in the North sea in 1986 by virtue of licences issued under part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 was:

  Tonnes

  Dredgings

  17,776,000

  Sewage sludge

  5,540,000

  Solid industrial waste

  2,570,000

  Liquid industrial waste

  242,000

  Sea disposal licences are not issued unless careful scientific examination shows the operation in question to be acceptable in terms of its impact on the marine environment, the living resources it supports, and human health, and unless it conforms to the relevant international conventions. The practical availability of alternative methods of dealing with the wastes is also taken into account. Monitoring of the marine environment indicates that the United Kingdom's sea disposal activities meet these criteria and the quality status report prepared for the ministerial North sea conference bears this out.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much is owed by his Department to the London residuary body in respect of unsettled Greater London council accounts.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 29 October 1987]: I estimate that further grant aid of approximately £5 million may become payable to the London residuary body in respect of the Thames tidal defence scheme. The precise sum and the timing of payments are dependent upon the submissions to my Department of the information necessary for the verification of claims.

EMPLOYMENT

  Job Training Scheme
  Mr. McLeish
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the number of trainee places occupied on the new job training scheme in the last month for which full figures are available, in Scotland, England and Wales.

  Mr. Cope
  At 25 September 1987, 1,966 people in Scotland, 19,258 people in England and 887 people in Wales were receiving training on the new job training scheme.

  Research Specialists
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of operational research specialists in his Department, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Lee
  My Department has never employed operational research specialists because of limited demand. When such expertise is required my officials engage outside specialists.

  New Workers Scheme
  Mr. Bowis
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the future of the new workers scheme.

  Mr. Lee
  As announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his statement on 3 November, the new workers scheme will close on 31 January next year. Applications for support in respect of jobs starting up to and including that date will be considered, provided they are received within 13 weeks of the job start date. Payment of support in respect of applications already approved is not affected.

  Job Release Scheme
  Mr. Bowis
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the future of the job release scheme.

  Mr. Lee
  As announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the scheme will close on 31 January 1988. All existing applications will be considered, but new applications can be considered only if the proposed date of early retirement is no later than 31 January 1988, except that applications made between 3 and 17 November 1987 with a release date up to 31 March 1988 may be considered in exceptional circumstances.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  South Africa (Sanctions)
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has received any official information pertaining to the reported threats by Mr. Johnstone Makatini of the African National Congress that British companies with investments in South Africa may be subjected to attacks and full scale violence if Her Majesty's Government do not apply further sanctions against South Africa; if in the light of previous contacts between Ministers and the African National Congress he has conveyed any representations or comments about this to Mr. Oliver Tambo; and what is his policy towards the threats to British subjects contained in Mr. Makatini's remarks.

  Mrs. Chalker
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on 22 October, at column 929, Mr. Makatini said in Vancouver that"violence could include attacks on British and other Western companies refusing to disengage and hasten the collapse of apartheid".—[Official Report 22 October 1987; Vol. 120, c. 929.]

  We take strong exception to such language. A central theme of our contacts with the ANC has been to condemn violence from whatever quarter it may come. We continue to take every opportunity to make our views widely known, and to call on the ANC and similar bodies to forswear violence.

  Foreign Ministers Council
  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what subjects will be considered at the next meeting of the European Economic Community Foreign Ministers Council.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) on 30 October at columns 479–80.

  Nicaragua
  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relations with Nicaragua.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have normal diplomatic relations with Nicaragua.

  El Salvador
  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received on the current human rights situation in El Salvador.

  Mr. Eggar
  We receive regular reports from various sources, including on the recent appalling murder of Mr. Herbert Anaya. The United Nations special representative's latest report indicates a further overall improvement in the situation, notes that the Government of El Salvador are doing what they can to combat the death squads and condemns killings, kidnapping and the indiscriminate use of landmines by the guerillas.

  UNESCO
  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will reapply for the membership of the United Kingdom to the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation.

  Mr. Eggar
  We made it clear when we withdrew from UNESCO that we would require evidence of fundamental and far-reaching reforms before reconsidering our position. There is no sign that such reforms are likely to be implemented in the near future.

  We welcome the prospect of the appointment of a new director general. This can be no more than one element in the task of tackling the formidable problems that face the organisation. Our fundamental concern remains UNESCO's programmes and administration. We shall continue to keep an open mind and monitor developments carefully.

  Cross-border Trade (Ireland)
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what attitude has been taken by Her Majesty's Government to the restrictions imposed by the Government of the Republic of Ireland on cross-border trade, whose conditions have been declared illegal by the European Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave to the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) on 28 October at column 270.

  Survey Office, Hong Kong
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the work of the Survey Office in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Survey Office was established to invite, collect, collate and report on the response of the public to the Hong Kong Government's Green Paper "The 1987 Review of Developments in Representative Government". It submitted its report to the Governor on 29 October. The independent monitors who were appointed to oversee the work of the office submitted their report to the Governor on 30 October. Copies of the two reports were tabled in the Legislative Council in Hong Kong today. Copies have also been placed in the Library of the House. The reports will now be carefully considered prior to publication by the Hong Kong Government of a White Paper in the new year.

  KMS Ltd
  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to gather information on the activities overseas of KMS Ltd.

  Mr. Mellor
  No. It is not our general policy to investigate the activities overseas of British companies.

  Middle East
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will sponsor an international conference to which representatives of the Israeli, Russian, and
  718
  American Governments can be invited, with representatives of the Palestinian people to discuss the situation on the middle east; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  As reaffirmed by Foreign Ministers of the Twelve in July, we continue to believe that an international conference under UN auspices represents the best way to make progress in finding a solution to the Israeli/Arab conflict.

ENVIRONMENT

  Rate Support Grant
  Mr. McCartney
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to announce the rate support grant settlement details for 1988–89.

  Mr. Ridley
  I issued a consultation paper on 27 October setting out details of my proposals for the 1988–89 rate support grant settlement.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Fearn
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any estimates as to the likely evasion levels of the proposed poll tax.

  Mr. Howard
  I have no reason to suppose that evasion will be significant.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many letters he has received from the general public about the proposed introduction of a community charge.

  Mr. Howard
  A summary of responses received by my Department before 31 October 1986, when the consultation period on the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government" (Cmnd. 9714) ended, was placed in the Library on 15 December 1986. 1,217 responses were received. Though opinions varied, twice as many people wanted to abolish domestic rates as wanted to keep them. The community charge received greater support than any other replacement for the rates. We continue to receive representations about specific aspects of our proposals as well as requests for further information.

  Mrs. Mahon
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will grant a separate identifiable sum of money to local authorities to cover the cost of implementing the community charge.

  Mr. Howard
  The cost of implementing the community charge will be taken into account in the rate support grant settlement for 1989–90 and in the needs assessments which will be used to determine grant entitlements under the new system.

  Mr. Geraint Howells
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has made any estimates as to the likely increase in administration costs incurred by local authorities if a poll tax is introduced.

  Mr. Howard
  Our preliminary estimate is that the cost per person liable of collecting the community charge may be broadly similar to the cost per person liable of collecting domestic rates.

  Mr. George Howarth
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many responses has he received

  719
  to his consultation paper "Non-domestic Rates, Amendments to the Rating Legislation in England and Wales" published in July.

  Mr. Howard
  A total of 281 responses to the consultation paper were received, of which five were from local authority associations, 16 from professional organisations, 56 from national and local commercial and industrial organisations, 101 from local authorities, 30 from firms of surveyors and 73 from other private sector firms and individuals. We are considering the proposals in the light of these responses.

  Mr. Madden
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the impact of the poll tax on Bradford.

  Mr. Howard
  My Department received 1,217 responses before 31 October 1986 when the consultation period of the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government" (Cmnd. 9714) ended. Two, about our proposals for a community charge were from respondents in Bradford. We continue to receive representations from all parts of the country about specific aspects of our proposals as well as requests for further information.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on the arrangement for phasing in the proposed poll tax.

  Mr. Howard
  The Government are considering the arrangements for introducing the community charge in England in the light of views that have been expressed. An announcement will be made in due course.

  Mr. Grocott
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those professional or academic organisations specialising in local government finance who are in favour of introduction of a poll tax.

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor).

  Mr. Alton
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have made representations to him in support of his poll tax proposals.

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) on 24 July at column 722.

  Mr. Pike
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will next be meeting the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance to discuss proposed changes to the rating system.

  Mr. Howard
  The annual cycle of meetings of the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance should recommence in the spring of next year.

  Mr. Illsley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the Government's proposals for a community charge or poll tax will apply to tenants of tied housing in the agricultural or other industries.

  Mr. Howard
  Yes.

  Mr. Allen
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many responses to the consultation document on the community charge he has received from the Nottingham area.

  Mr. Howard
  The booklet "Paying for Local Government—the Community Charge" was not a720
  consultation document. Since it was published in December 1986, the Department has received several thousand letters from all over the country of all aspects of our rate reform proposals.

  Mr. Canavan
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received about the Government's proposals to introduce a poll tax.

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor).

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all the factors outside the control of a local authority which can influence the relationship between levels of expenditure and poll tax; and if he will make a statement outlining how these factors have been taken into account in the Green and Yellow Papers relating to the introduction of the poll tax.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer, 3 November 1987]: The amount of central Government grant and payments from the non-domestic rate pool will both be fixed in advance of that year. Changes in authorities' spending, in relation to that year, will be reflected directly in community charges. Payments of grant and non-domestic rates may vary between years. That is why our proposals for the payment of grant, published on 23 September, included proposals for substantially reducing instability in grant entitlements. Payments from the non-domestic rate pool will be proportionate to adult population and will reflect only changes in the income to the pool.

  Private Rented Accommodation
  Mr. Riddick
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for improving the supply of privately rented accommodation.

  Mrs. Roe
  We outlined our proposals in the recent housing White Paper, and described them in more detail in the consultation document on the private rented sector issued by the Department on 1 October. We will introduce measures in a new Housing Bill this Session to stimulate the supply of privately rented accommodation.

  Inner Cities
  Mr. Duffy
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to encourage investment in the inner cities.

  Mr. Ridley
  We have established five new urban development corporations and will be setting up a number of mini-UDCs, all of which will encourage investment. Urban development grant and urban regeneration grant generate substantial investment in inner cities. Our legislative proposals on the national non-domestic rate will remove a major obstacle to firms wishing to set up in those inner city areas which at present choose to have prohibitively high rates.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for stimulating new enterprise in the inner cities.

  Mr. Trippier
  A number of my Department's programmes are specifically aimed at stimulating new enterprise in the inner cities. Urban development corporations, which operate in some of the most rundown
  721
  areas, use their powers to acquire, reclaim and service land and their development control powers to create a climate of confidence to attract businesses and encourage them to invest.

  Urban development grants are paid through local authorities to bridge the gap between the cost of a project and its value.

  Urban regeneration grants work in the same way as urban development grants, but are paid direct to the private sector for projects which bring very large sites and buildings back into use.

  Urban programme support for local authority assistance to industry is aimed at removing or reducing the competitive disadvantages suffered by business in rundown urban areas.

  Other programmes, which are wider in scope, also help to encourage businesses to invest in inner city areas.

  Derelict land grant covers part of the net loss to the landowner as a result of carrying out reclamation work; and land registers bring to the attention of prospective developers details of unused and underused land owned by public authorities.

  In addition, our legislative proposals on the national non-domestic rate will remove a major obstacle to firms wishing to set up in those inner city areas which at present choose to have prohibitively high rates.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to ensure that in his Department's housing and financial policies for the inner cities, the needs of existing inner city residents are given priority.

  Mr. Trippier
  Improving the quality of life for inner city residents is a key part of the Government's strategy for urban renewal. My Department's plans for giving council tenants the opportunity to find another landlord when they are dissatisfied with the service their local authority provides, and the competition and enterprise this will stimulate, should lead to a major improvement in the quality of housing management and service to inner city tenants. The Government have made it clear that housing action trusts will regard the interest of those already resident in their area as central. Policies to strengthen local authorities' financial accountability, and extended competition in the provision of services will also benefit inner city residents. The urban programme places a strong emphasis on economic, environmental and social projects of direct benefit to local residents, complementing wider measures designed to regenerate the urban economy.

  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, for the purposes of tackling the inner cities crisis, he will make it his policy to consult church, environmental and housing organisations, local authorities and other members of the communities affected by such problems.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department regularly discusses inner cities policy and the operation of existing programmes with a wide range of interested organisations and individuals including local authorities and representatives of the churches, business organisations, and other bodies concerned with economic, social, environmental and housing issues.

  Water Authorities
  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the outstanding level of debt for each of Britain's 10 water authorities compared with the level of their water rates.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The outstanding debt of each of the English water authorities as a percentage of its annual turnover is as follows:

  Number

  Anglian

  264

  Northumbrian

  368

  North West

  239

  Severn Trent

  188

  Southern

  146

  South West

  131

  Thames

  42

  Wessex

  218

  Yorkshire

  199

  The Welsh water authority is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. There are no water authorities in Scotland.

  House Building
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures for private house building starts.

  Mrs. Roe
  In January to September this year 127,000 private dwellings were started in England, more than in those months of any other year since 1973.

  Derelict Land
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for bringing into use publicly owned derelict land.

  Mr. Ridley
  I am empowered under part X of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 to direct certain public bodies to dispose of their underused land. Since 1984, the statutory procedures for directing owners to sell have been initiated on over 250 sites covering 1,300 acres. The Local Government Bill now before Parliament contains our proposals to streamline these procedures.

  Westminster Council (Housing Policy)
  Dr. Moonie
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he plans to take on representations sent to him about the housing policy of Westminster council.

  Mrs. Roe
  None. Local Authorities are responsible for their own housing policies, subject to legal requirements, including, where appropriate, the need to obtain consent from my right hon. Friend.

  Rates
  Mr. Leigh
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest assessment of the impact on rate levels of the next statutory revaluation.

  Mr. Howard
  Information on the effects of the 1990 revaluation will not be available until the valuation office has analysed the rental information that it is now collecting.
  723
  Mr. Evennett
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from business organisations in London and the home counties concerning the proposed establishment of a uniform business rate.

  Mr. Howard
  My Department received 1,217 responses before 31 October 1986 when the consultation period on the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government" (Cmnd. 9714) ended. Of these, 45 were about our proposals for a uniform business rate and were from business organisations in the home counties. We continue to receive representations from all parts of the country about aspects of our proposals as well as requests for further information.

  Mr. Watts
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the uniform business rate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  542 responses were received about our proposals for a national non-domestic rate before 31 October 1986 when the consultation period on the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government" (Cmnd. 9714) ended. We continue to receive representations about specific aspects of our proposals as well as requests for further information.

  Mr. Riddick
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment Her Majesty's Government have made of the likely effects upon households in (a) the Colne Valley constituency and (b) the Kirklees Metropolitan district council and (c) the Yorkshire and Humberside region of proceeding with a rate revaluation of domestic properties; and what is his estimate of the number of gainers and losers under such a revaluation.

  Mr. Howard
  Detailed estimates of the effects of a domestic revaluation are not available; but a recent independent study has forecast that rate bills in the north would increase, especially for occupiers of terraced houses.

  Dorset (Structure Plan)
  Mr. Adley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what contact he has had with Dorset county council confirming its proposed revision of the current structure plan.

  Mrs. Roe
  I have had no personal contact with Dorset county council. As is customary, my officials replied to the county council's consultative document of June 1986, but not on the merits of the proposals. They have also met the council's officers to discuss technical details, and to keep in touch with progress on the review of the structure plan.

  National Rivers Authority
  Mr. O'Brien
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about his proposals to establish a National Rivers Authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  By the end of October, a total of 318 responses had been received to our policy and consultation paper. Of these, 160 expressed support, and 34 opposition, for the proposals to establish the National Rivers Authority; the remainder commented on details of our proposals, but expressed no view on the principle. I am pleased by the wide measure of support which the 724
  responses have shown for our proposals, both inside and outside the water industry itself. We are now considering the comments received, and we shall make known our decisions on the unresolved aspects of our proposals in due course.

  Dr. Reid
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has considered what mechanisms or criteria will be used by the National Rivers Authority for charging for water recreational activity and fishing, and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Wise
  asked the Secretary of state for the Environment what he estimates the annual Exchequer grant-in-aid to the National Rivers Authority is likely to be.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer given to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on Monday 2 November 1987.

  Mr. Martlew
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates he has made as to percentage increases in charges to industry for discharge consents that will be made by the National Rivers Authority.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Government have proposed that the National Rivers Authority should be empowered to charge for the costs which it reasonably incurs in setting, and monitoring compliance with, effluent discharge consents. Such costs may vary in relation to the scale and complexity of the discharge, but the average charge is unlikely to be substantial.

  Rural Development Areas
  Mr. Beith
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent evidence he has of the effectiveness of the policies pursued in rural development areas designated by the Development Commission.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Development Commission's annual report for 1986–87 which was published on 14 October sets out the latest information on the commission's various achievements in rural areas. A detailed study of the effectiveness of the commission's economic programmes by the Joint Unit for Research on the Urban Environment is to be published shortly.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Dykes
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received following his announcement that there would be no change of use in respect of hospitals included on metropolitan green belt sites which are subject to relocation proposals.

  Mrs. Roe
  We have received several representations about detailed aspects of the guidelines on the alternative uses to which redundant hospital sites in green belts may be put.

  Local Authority Services
  Mr. John Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on progress with contracting out local authority services by competitive tendering.

  Mr. Howard
  It is clear that despite the good example shown by a small number of authorities, the vast majority
  725
  of local services will not be subjected to market tests of their efficiency without compulsion. Part I of the current Local Government Bill therefore fulfils our commitments to bring forward legislation so as to ensure that ratepayers are not denied the benefits of competition for much longer.

  Rivers (Quality)
  Ms. Quin
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals exist to reverse the decline in river quality over the last five years.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Government's proposals for protection and enhancement of the water environment were published last year in its consultation paper, "The Water Environment: The Next Steps." A copy is lodged in the Library of the House. We are considering, in the light of the recent report by the Environment Committee, whether any further measures may be appropriate.

  Private Empty Property
  Mr. Robert Hayward
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for bringing into use privately owned empty properties.

  Mrs. Roe
  Our proposals to reform the private rented sector, outlined in the recent housing White Paper, should encourage many landlords to bring back into use properties which are currently empty.

  Local Authority Expenditure
  Mr. Livsey
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to allow local authorities to spend more then 20 per cent. of their capital receipts from council house sales on housing needs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Roe
  Local authorities can use their capital receipts at any time to redeem debt or for non-prescribed expenditure such as capitalised repairs. The future use of capital receipts from the sale of council houses will be discussed in the Government's forthcoming consultation paper on a new financial regime for local authority housing.

  House Prices
  Mr. Darling
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any proposals to deal with house price inflation in the south-east of England.

  Mrs. Roe
  House prices are determined by individual buyers and sellers, and the Government do not propose to intervene in private negotiations. The Government will continue to encourage initiatives such as shared ownership which can help to reduce the initial costs of home ownership.

  Storm Damage
  Mr. Grant
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make funds available to local authorities to assist them in dealing with any long-term damage arising from the recent storms and floods.

  Mr. Chope
  The scheme of special financial assistance for dealing with storm damage in England announced by my right hon. Friend on 21 October applies only to 726
  immediate emergency-related expenditure incurred by local authorities. But, as my right hon. Friend announced. the Government are making limited additional capital allocations available to local authorities this year to assist with repairs to buildings; and additional funds for the Countryside Commission's tree-planting scheme, which extends to local authorities.

  The flooding in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Ms. Ruddock
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will reimburse the London borough of Lewisham for costs incurred, within his area of responsibility, in meeting the emergencies resulting from the hurricane on 16 October.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Environment, on 21 October. The London borough of Lewisham was invited that day by the Department to apply for assistance if it incurred eligible expenditure above the threshold in the Bellwin scheme.

  "The New Grant System"
  Mr. Battle
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many responses he has received to his consultation paper "The New Grant System" published in September.

  Mr. Howard
  Ten letters have been received. In addition, my officials have discussed the paper with officials of the local authority associations.

  Council Houses
  Mr. Fallon
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses were available for letting but vacant on 1 April; and what change this represents from April 1986.

  Mrs. Roe
  The latest estimates, based on figures reported by English local authorities in their annual housing investment programme returns, is 25,000 dwellings vacant and available for letting at 1 April 1987, a reduction of 5,000 (16 per cent.) compared with April 1986.

  Dr. Twinn
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for increasing choice in housing provision for those living in council-owned accommodation.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend proposes a "tenants' choice" scheme, allowing most secure tenants of local housing authorities to invite a new landlord of their choice to apply to the council to buy, with their consent, the freehold of their home.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Dunnachie
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next proposes to discuss the reform of local government finance with the local authority associations.

  Mr. Chope
  My Department has established a number of working groups with the local authority associations to discuss our proposals for reforming the present system of financing local government in England. The annual cycle
  727
  of meetings of the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance, which are chaired by my right hon. Friend, should recommence in the spring of next year.

  Mr. David Porter
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish his detailed proposals to reform the present system of financing of local government.

  Mr. Howard
  The Government's proposals for changes to the local finance system were set out in the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government" (Cmnd. 9714) published on 28 January 1986. Consultation on the proposals ran until 31 October 1986 and the Government subsequently published a document "Paying for Local Government: The Community Charge", confirming that they intended to proceed and setting out the proposed administrative arrangements, on 15 December 1986. Since then we have published further documents setting out the Government's proposals for amending the non-domestic rating system and for a new grant system. It was announced in the Gracious Speech that a Bill would be introduced in this Session of Parliament to reform the present rating system.

  Housing Defects Act 1984
  Mr. Barron
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to seek to amend the Housing Defects Act 1984; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have no plans to amend the housing defects legislation itself. However, we are currently considering whether the detailed rules, in section 538 of the Act, governing grant as against repurchase, might be made more flexible. These rules can be revised tinder secondary legislation.

  Rate Capping
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he makes of the demand for services in a particular local authority when reaching his decision on whether to rate-cap that authority.

  Mr. Chope
  Under the Rates Act 1984, an authority may only be selected for rate limitation on the basis of certain common criteria determined by my right hon. Friend. For every year since the system was introduced, one of the criteria he has determined is the extent to which an authority's total expenditure is likely to exceed its grant-related expenditure, which itself is an objective assessment of what the authority would need to spend to provide a standard level of services.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Bellingham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of council home sales in the latest period for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Roe
  In the three months April to June 1987, English local authorities and new towns sold an estimated 21,900 dwellings.

  Mr. Flannery
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses have been sold since the right to buy was given to sitting tenants; and how many council houses have been built in the same period.

  Mrs. Roe
  From October 1980 to end June 1987, 765,000 dwellings were sold by English local authorities and new towns, while 214,000 were completed for them.
  728
  Sir John Farr
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to make it possible for council house tenants to buy their homes where they are now prevented from so doing because of fittings therein for a disabled member of the family.

  Mrs. Roe
  It seems right that purpose-built and sheltered housing for the physically disabled should be excluded from the right to buy. In 1984 the Government proposed in the Housing and Building Control Bill to extend the right to buy to housing which had only been adapted for the disabled, but an amendment was carried excluding dwellings which had been the subject of certain major adaptations. There are no plans for further legislation.

  Structure Plans
  Mr. Nicholas
  Baker asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the future of structure plans.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Government published proposals for the future of development plans in September 1986, as a basis for consultation. One of the proposals put forward was that the present system of structure and local plans should be abolished, and replaced by a single tier of district development plans. There has been a very full response to that paper from a wide range of organisations and individuals and we are considering the action which should now be taken.

  Urban Regeneration Grants
  Mr. Heddle
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to revise the criteria for urban regeneration grants.

  Mr. Trippier
  Urban regeneration grant was launched in April 1987 and has generated considerable interest. I shall review progress shortly.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the increase in London's homelessness between 1979 and 1987.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In 1979, London boroughs accepted responsibility for securing accommodation for 16,650 households. In the first half of 1987, they accepted 14,820.

  Mr. Haynes
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to offer temporary accommodation to the homeless over Christmas and in periods of severe weather.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The primary responsibility for assisting homeless people rests with the local authorities.

  Mr. Corbyn
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the most recent previous year's cost to the London boroughs of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for homeless people.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  From returns made by local authorities to the Department it is estimated that in 1985–86 the total net cost to London boroughs was £25·3 million.

  Ms. Primarolo
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to deal with the problem of homelessness.
  729
  Mrs. Roe
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given earlier today to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan).

  Pollution
  Mrs. Walley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has, as to the amount of pollution in the North sea caused by British rivers.

  Rivers

  N

  P

  CD

  HG

  CU

  PB

  ZN

  CR

  NI

  As

  Forth

  818

  —

  1·7

  0·1

  38·5

  12·7

  65·6

  8·5

  13·1

  —

  Tyne

  876

  190

  1·3

  1·4

  9·4

  6·9

  490·4

  3·3

  5·0

  8·6

  Tees

  1,752

  219

  0·6

  0·6

  5·9

  8·8

  20·5

  0·6

  1·1

  2·9

  Humber

  41,537

  584

  3·4

  0·7

  114·2

  122·0

  355·6

  60·7

  123·9

  20·2

  Thames

  31,280

  110

  1·5

  1·1

  21·7

  40·5

  58·0

  13·0

  32·4

  1·6

  Others

  34,477

  2,336

  2·5

  1·0

  76·3

  83·1

  455·4

  33·5

  74·0

  13·4

  110,740

  3,439

  11

  4·9

  266

  274

  1,445·5

  119·6

  249·5

  46·7

  Percentage of total riverine inputs to the North sea from British rivers: 11 4·5 22 23 20 28 20

  Information from other countries is incomplete.

  Local Government (Accountability)
  Mr. Forth
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for improving the accountability to the community of local government.

  Mr. Chope
  Our proposed changes to the way local government is paid for, in particular the introduction of the community charge, will greatly enhance the accountability of local authorities to those who live in their areas.

  Business Movement
  Mr. Moss
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for encouraging the movement of businesses into the poorer parts of the country.

  Mr. Trippier
  A number of my Department's programmes are aimed specifically at encouraging businesses to invest in inner city areas.

  Urban development corporations, which operate in some of the most rundown areas, use their powers to acquire, reclaim and service land and their development control powers to create a climate of confidence to attract businesses and encourage them to invest.

  Urban development grants are paid through local authorities to bridge the gap between the cost of a project and its value.

  Urban regeneration grants work in the same way as urban development grants, but are paid direct to the private sector for projects which bring very large sites and buildings back into use.

  Urban programme support for local authority assistance to industry is aimed at removing or reducing the competitive disadvantages suffered by business in rundown urban areas.

  Other programmes help to encourage businesses to invest in other areas with economic difficulties.

  Derelict land grant covers part of the net loss to the landowner as a result of carrying out reclamation work, and land registers bring to the attention of prospective developers details of unused and under-used land owned
  730
  Mr. Moynihan
  Controls on inputs of potentially polluting substances to rivers which discharge into the North sea are designed to reduce to a minimum their harmful effects, that is, pollution. The table shows the estimated levels (in tonnes per annum) of the main discharges via British rivers in 1985.

  by public authorities. The assistance provided by the Development Commission and its agent COSIRA is given to small firms operating or wishing to set up in particularly needy rural areas.

  Our legislative proposals on the national non-domestic rate will remove a major obstacle to businesses wishing to set up or expand in those inner city areas which at present choose to have prohibitively high rates.

  "Paying for Local Government: the Need for Change"
  Mr. Clelland
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how much the latest yellow summary pamphlet of "Paying for Local Government: the Need for Change" cost his Department to produce and print; and how many copies have been printed to date.

  Mr. Howard
  100,000 copies of "Paying for Local Government: the Need for Change" have been printed at a total cost of £16,200.

  Nugee Report
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding his Department's response to the Nugee report in relation to leasehold flats.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There have been a number of representations from interested organisations and members of the public about the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, which implemented the main findings of the Nugee report.

  Local Authority Manual Workers
  Mr. Atkinson
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the likely impact on the level of rates of the recent wage settlement for local authority manual workers.

  Mr. Chope
  If there is no increase in productivity, the 10·6 per cent. pay increase conceded by the local authority employers to their manual workers could cost over £330 million, which is equivalent to 2 per cent. on rates.

  Housing (Inner-City Areas)
  Mr. Baldry
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on initiatives being taken in collaboration with the private sector to improve public sector housing in inner-city areas.

  Mrs. Roe
  We are undertaking a number of major initiatives to attract the skills and resources of the private sector into public sector housing, particularly in inner city areas. In 1985 we launched the estate action team to develop with local authorities packages of solutions for the difficult to let housing estates. A key aim is to involve the private sector wherever possible in these packages, for example through a housebuilder or developer refurbishing rundown empty properties for onward sale or renting. More than 20 of the 138 estate action schemes approved in 1986–87 include private sector investment which will provide up to 3,000 new or refurbished houses. We aim to improve this figure this year.

  The estate action team's work is complemented by a range of financial incentives to include the private sector in housing initiatives generally, where an additional public sector input is needed. The unit itself has £75 million in 1987–88 (£50 million in 1986–87) to allocate in support of its packages. We have also made available £30 million to the Housing Corporation this year to allocate to projects, including homelessness schemes, which will draw in a further £70 million in private investment, and urban development grant (up to £30 million in 1987–88) continues to be available to enable a wide range of projects, including housing schemes, to go ahead in inner city areas.

  In the forthcoming Housing Bill we will be taking two new initiatives which will build on estate action's work. First, in areas where social problems and housing disrepair are particularly serious, housing action trusts will be set up to carry out improvements using both public and private sector resources before transferring the stock to new owners and managers. Secondly, we are introducing in the Bill arrangements to allow council tenants to choose to transfer to other, private landlords. As well as creating greater choice and efficiency, this move will also lead to more private investment in rented housing overall.

  Berkshire (Planning Appeals)
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of planning appeals in Berkshire he has allowed in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  During the year 1 September 1986 to 31 August 1987, 46 per cent. of planning appeals decided in the Berkshire area were allowed.

  Lead-free Petrol
  Mr. McTaggart
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects lead-free petrol to be readily and widely available in Britain.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Encouraging progress is being made. As at 12 October 1987, 519 petrol stations, providing good geographical coverage, were offering unleaded petrol for sale. I expect further rapid expansion, but the precise scale and timing will depend on increasing uptake by the motoring public, and the response of the petrol companies. We are taking a number of measures to encourage motorists to switch to the cleaner fuel.

  Housing Initiatives (Government Support)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on central Government support for housing initiatives in the city of Manchester and the borough of Trafford.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In Manchester, my Department's estate action unit approved additional capital allocations of £1,048,000 in 1986–87 and £915,000 in 1987–88 for work to the Miles Platting council estate; and £351,000 in 1986–87 to help the homeless. Urban programme grant for environmental work at Miles Platting has also been approved: £784,383 was available in 1986–87 and £1,270,232 this year.

  Both Manchester and Trafford are expected to make bids shortly for estate action support for new schemes in 1987–88.

  Local Government
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for improving the efficiency of operation of local government.

  Mr. Chope
  Effectiveness, efficiency and economy of operation in local government are the responsibility of the locally elected councillors. The proposals now before the House to widen competitive tendering will improve value for money in the delivery of local government services. Our proposals on paying for local government will immensely strengthen the direct accountability of local authorities to their electorates for the efficiency of the services they provide.

  Lambeth
  Mr. Fraser
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether in 1988–89 he proposes to increase resources in Lambeth which are directed at inner-city problems.

  Mr. Trippier
  I cannot anticipate public expenditure decisions for 1988–89. I will decide on Lambeth's allocation of urban programme resources, which are specifically directed to inner city problems, in the light of the borough's inner area programme.

  Common Land
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to introduce legislation regarding common land; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) on 22 October at column 871.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the Government's proposals in relation to the storage of intermediate-level nuclear waste.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Intermediate-level radioactive waste is currently being stored at producing sites, pending the development of a deep disposal facility for both intermediate and low-level waste. Responsibility for evaluating the relative merits of techniques of deep burial
  733
  and identifying a suitable location for a facility rests with UK NIREX Ltd. NIREX is planning to publish a discussion document shortly which will outline the options it is pursuing and invite comments from interested parties.

  International Conference on the North Sea
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will be attending the international conference on the North sea to be held in London in November, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given earlier today by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood).

  Squatting
  Mr. Bendall
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the incidence of squatting in London and the impact that this has on those on the waiting list for council housing including the homeless.

  Mrs. Roe
  London boroughs reported in their latest housing investment programme returns that, at 1 April 1987, 6,900 of their dwelling, 0·9 per cent. of total council stock in London, were squatted. Information is not available on squatting in property not owned by the boroughs.

  In most authorities the number of squatted dwellings is a very small proportion of their total stock. Three boroughs however, (Southwark, Lambeth and Hackney), accounted for 64 per cent. of all reported cases of squatting in London, with just under 3 per cent. of these boroughs' stock being used in this way, and the impact may well be felt on the homeless and those on council housing lists there.

  Basildon (Rate-capping)
  Mr. Amess
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about his decision to rate-cap Basildon district council.

  Mr. Chope
  The Secretary of State has received no representations about the selection of Basildon district council for rate limitation in 1988–89.

  Rural Areas (Housing)
  Dr. Marek
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take to deal with problems of housing in rural areas.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The proposals in the White Paper "Housing: the Government's Proposals" (Cmnd. 214) will provide opportunities for improving housing in both rural and urban areas. I have had a useful discussion with interested groups on the implications for rural areas: and will take them into account as the new approach is developed.

  Property Revaluation
  Mr. Favell
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when was the last revaluation of properties in England and Wales; and what information he has as to the class of domestic properties whose value increased most as a result.
  734
  Mr. Howard
  The last rating revaluation of properties in England and Wales was in 1973. I will write to my hon. Friend about the other part of his question.

  Water Meters
  Mr. Nellist
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has estimated the cost of installing water meters in every home in Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No. The cost will depend on where meters are sited and on the economics of scale a widespread metering programme will generate. The proposed compulsory metering trials will help to establish the sort of costs involved.

  Runcorn
  Mr. Butler
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to consult new town tenants in Runcorn on their wishes with regard to future landlords after the wind-up of the new town development corporation.

  Mrs. Roe
  The Government believe that the interests of the development corporation's tenants are of vital importance, and we shall make sure that they have an opportunity to express their views before any change of landlord takes place.

  Water Industry
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied with progress on compliance with the terms of EC environment directives within the water industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  In general, yes. The United Kingdom makes every effort to comply with European Community directives and our record is a good one, both in terms of the formal implementation of directives' requirements and the quality of water in the environment which is achieved.

  However, like other member states, we sometimes have difficulties in implementing or meeting the requirements of particular directives. Such problems, when identified, can usually be resolved either through discussions with the water industry or, where appropriate, with the Commission of the European Communities.

  Research Specialists
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total number of operational research specialists in his Department, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Ridley
  Five currently. The information is not available for past years.

  Enterprise Zones
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures are used to assess the job creation effect of enterprise zones; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Regular annual monitoring of activity in the zones records changes in employment but does not distinguish between new jobs and those transferred from
  735
  elsewhere. We therefore asked the consultants who have evaluated the enterprise zone experiment in Great Britain to assess changes in employment attributable to the zones. Their report will be published in the near future.

  Golden Plover
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to remove the golden plover from the quarry species of birds included in schedule 2. part I, to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I am advised that there is no conservation reason at present which would justify removal of the golden plover from part I of schedule 2 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  Surveying Authority

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Total

  Submitted

  Confirmed

  Submitted

  Confirmed

  Submitted

  Confirmed

  Submitted

  Confirmed

  Submitted

  Confirmed

  Avon

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  1

  Berkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  1

  1

  5

  1

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  3

  —

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  1

  Derbyshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Devon

  1

  —

  3

  —

  3

  1

  1

  1

  8

  2

  Dorset

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  2

  1

  —

  5

  2

  Durham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  1

  —

  6

  10

  7

  Essex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  5

  —

  7

  —

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  —

  Hampshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Humberside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Isle of Wight

  1

  —

  2

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  5

  1

  Kent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  2

  —

  4

  1

  Leicestershire

  1

  —

  1

  1

  3

  —

  1

  4

  6

  5

  Lincolnshire

  3

  —

  2

  —

  1

  3

  1

  1

  7

  4

  Norfolk

  7

  —

  4

  —

  5

  5

  8

  3

  24

  8

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  4

  1

  Northumberland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Oxfordshire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Shropshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  12

  —

  2

  5

  15

  5

  Somerset

  2

  —

  2

  2

  4

  1

  4

  5

  12

  8

  Surrey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  1

  3

  1

  West Sussex

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  4

  3

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  —

  —

  2

  4

  2

  Greater Manchester

  1

  —

  4

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  5

  4

  South Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Tyne and Wear

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Wakefield MDC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  Leeds City Council

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  —

  Stockport MBC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Calderdale MBC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

DEFENCE

  Search and Rescue
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for each year since establishment the number of sorties involving the rescue of (a) military personnel, (b) merchant seamen and (c) civilians undertaken by the helicopter search and rescue flight stationed at RAF Brawdy, Pembrokeshire.

  Mr. Freeman
  Statistics are readily available only from 1983, and in the following form. From 1 January 1983

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
  Mr. Key
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of (a) notices and (b) orders applied for by each local authority under section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 for each year since its introduction; of those, how many (i) notices and (ii) orders were granted under section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 for each year since its introduction; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Figures for the numbers of notices served by surveying authorities under section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 are not held centrally. Nor have we any information about the numbers of orders made except in cases where they are opposed and subsequently submitted to the Secretary of State for confirmation. The relevant annual figures for each authority that has so submitted such an order to date are as follows:

  until 30 September 1987 the following search and rescue sorties were carried out by helicopters based at RAF Brawdy:

  Number of persons recovered

  Year

  Number of sorties

  Military

  Civilians

  (A)

  (B)

  Total

  1983

  39

  7

  17

  33

  57

  1984

  50

  —

  29

  68

  97

  1985

  36

  1

  23

  43

  67

  1986

  46

  8

  34

  45

  87

  1987

  43

  1

  5

  51

  57

  737
  (A) Category includes merchant seamen and civilians on passenger vessels for example, ferries.

  (B) Other civilians includes fishermen, pleasure craft and those rescued on land.

  RNAD Milford and Trecwin
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many working days were lost as a result of industrial action in each of the past 13 years at (a) royal naval armaments depot Milford and (b) royal naval armaments depot Trecwin; and if he will list the reason for each industrial action.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The available information is not held in the form requested. I shall write to my hon. Friend.

  Naval Mines
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's assessment of the role of the conventional naval mine in modern warfare as both a defensive and offensive weapon.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Recent events in the Gulf demonstrate the threat that can be posed to surface shipping by conventional naval mines. Additionally, the conventional naval mine can be employed as an anti-submarine weapon system with options for use in an offensive or defensive role.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list for each NATO country the estimated number of conventional naval mines held by each country;

  (2) if he will list for each NATO country the estimated annual production of conventional naval mines in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  It is not our practice, for good reasons of security, to give details of stocks or production rates of munitions of this kind.

  Goose Bay
  Sir Dudley Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what use is made of the facilities at Goose Bay in Labrador for low-flying training; and whether there are any plans for an expansion of Royal Air Force activities there.

  Mr. Freeman
  The facilities at Goose Bay in Labrador are currently used for low-flying training by the Royal Air Force, as well as the air forces of Canada, the United States of America, the Federal Republic of Germany, and the Netherlands. Usage is governed by a multilateral memorandum of understanding, voluntarily entered into by all these Governments, including Her Majesty's Government. This limits the maximum number of aircraft and personnel to be stationed there. There are at present no plans to renegotiate this understanding. Goose Bay also remains one of the possible locations for the proposed NATO tactical fighter weapons training centre, on which a decision by NATO has not yet been made.

  Swynnerton Training Area, (Radioactivity)
  Ms. Walley
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will invite the local elected representatives responsible for public protection, hon. Members representing Staffordshire and a radiation monitoring expert of the county council's choice to visit the Swynnerton camp and satisfy themselves that there is no danger from radiation;

  (2) if he will now publish the dates of all exercises involving the use of radioactive material at Swynnerton;

  (3) what amount of topsoil was removed from Swynnerton following exercises involving radioactive material; to where; and where it now is.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  It is not our practice to discuss details of nuclear accident response exercises. However, the precautions that we take to ensure the safety both of participants in nuclear accident response exercises and of the general public were fully set out in the reply that I gave to the hon. Lady and to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on 23 July at columns 386–87. I see no valid reason for the suggested inspection of Swynnerton training area.

  Research Specialists
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total number of operational research specialists in his Department for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Operational research specialists in the Ministry of Defence are not separately identified. Scientists from a wide range of scientific and mathematical disciplines can expect to be posted into operational research and assessment groups in the Department at various stages in their careers.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Empty Government Property
  Mr. Rogers
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of Government-owned houses and flats have been empty for more than six months.

  Mr. Major
  I regret that this information cannot be provided without disproportionate cost.

  Tax Offices
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking to improve the administrative efficiency and speed with which matters are dealt with by tax offices in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Generally, tax offices are working efficiently, but, where necessary, the Inland Revenue takes all possible steps to reduce arrears of work.

  Profit-related Pay
  Mr. Henderson
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many companies have registered an interest in the profit-related pay scheme;

  (2) if he will list those companies which have registered an interest in the profit-related pay scheme.

  Mr. Brooke
  The mailing list held by the Inland Revenue of all those who have asked to receive
  739
  information and guidance notes about profit-related pay contains over 26,000 names. I do not propose to publish this list.

  Inland Revenue (Records)
  Mr. Raison
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for how many individuals are home addresses known to the Inland Revenue.

  Mr. Lawson
  The Inland Revenue has records of the home addresses of some 31 million individuals. When—as in many cases—there has been no need for recent correspondence, the information may of course be out of date.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Redwood
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost to the Exchequer in a full year if both husband and wife enjoyed a separate capital gains allowance.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  If husband and wife were each entitled to an annual exempt amount of £6,600, and if unused amounts were transferable to the other spouse, the cost would be of the order of £50 million to £100 million.

  Mr. Redwood
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost in a full year of raising the capital gains tax allowance to £10,000 per person, and allowing both husband and wife a separate allowance.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  About £250 million to £350 million if annual exempt amounts unused by one spouse were transferable to the other.

  Taxation
  Mr. Hood
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received about present taxation policies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lamont
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received a number of representations, which he is considering. It is not customary to make statements on taxation policy ahead of the Budget statement

  Third-World
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to grant tax relief to the banks in respect of their write-down of Third-world debt; and what will be the cost to the Exchequer.

  Mr. Lilley
  Tax relief due to banks in respect of loans which cannot be recovered in full is governed by the ordinary tax rules which apply to any trader who gives credit in the course of his business. Insufficient data are available to estimate the notional amount of tax revenues forgone as a result of losses incurred by banks on irrecoverable loans.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the lending to the Third world by British banks was to finance the servicing of existing loans, in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Lilley
  No comprehensive data are available for annual flows of gross lending by British banks to less 740
  developed sovereign borrowers which identify the purpose to which such lending has been put. However, end-year consolidated figures for United Kingdom registered banks' total claims on less developed countries for the period 1982–86 are as follows. British-owned banks account for around three quarters of the total. Firm figures for interest paid to British-owned banks are unavailable, but a rough calculation suggests that the annual amounts paid by less developed countries might have fallen by about a third between 1982 and 1986, the effect of an increase in the debt outstanding being more than offset by a decline in interest rates.

  End-period

  Total

  ․ billion

  1982

  45·9

  1983

  47·8

  1984

  47·4

  1985

  48·0

  1986

  49·2

  Notes:

  (1) Changes between years reflect the effect of exchange rate movements as well as flows of lending.

  (2) Many developing countries, included in these figures, have not experienced problems in servicing their debts.

  HMSO
  Mr. Trotter
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 29 October, what specific problems are occurring in the Stationery Office which are resulting in some parliamentary questions continuing to appear on the Order Paper after an instruction has been given that they should be withdrawn; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  Her Majesty's Stationery Office very much regrets that problems have occasionally occurred as a result of errors in the checking procedure. Her Majesty's Stationery Office is working closely with the House editorial staff to introduce more robust procedures to avoid this happening in future.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give details in the Official Report of the new printing equipment which has been purchased by Her Majesty's Stationery Office for the printing of Commons publications.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 3 November 1987]: The main items of equipment newly purchased by Her Majesty's Stationery Office for the printing of Commons publications are as follows:

  a computer typesetting system, comprising two independently working but interlinked systems, with a total of 26 terminals;

  three helium-neon laser typesetting machines, connected on-line to the typesetting system;

  two high-volume bromide paper developing units, with a third smaller unit;

  two projection platemaking systems comprising camera stations, film development unit and computer-driven platemaking unit;

  two plate processing units:

  three twin-unit web-fed offset lithographic printing presses;

  six sheet-fed offset lithographic perfecting presses; one flat-bed lithographic proofing press;

  one 16-station finishing line for automatic gathering, side-stitching and trimming;

  741

  one 6-station finishing line for gathering and saddle-stitching;

  two plastic enveloping machines and one plastic shrink wrapping machine.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will name the manufacturers, suppliers and country of origin of the new equipment at Her Majesty's Stationery Office which has been involved in the recent delays in the printing of Commons papers.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 3 November 1987]: The manufacturers, suppliers and country of origin of the relevant new equipment at the Parliamentary Press are as follows:

  Miles 33 system 400 typesetting system. Miles 33 is a British supplier. Hardware was manufactured in the United States of America by Data General and Rank Xerox and in the United Kingdom by Linwood Ltd. Software was written in the United Kingdom.

  Wohlenberg Projekte Systeme GmbH. a West German Company, manufactured the majority of the 16-station flowline which was supplied by Pershke Price Service Organisation, a British firm.

  EC (Finance)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the gross contribution, before any rebates or refunds, which the United Kingdom will be required to make to the European Economic Community in respect of 1987; and what estimate he has made of the gross contribution under the proposals now made by the European Economic Community Commission for contributions by member states related to gross domestic product and value added tax had been in force.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 3 November 1987]:Estimates of the United Kingdom's gross contribution before abatement to the 1987 Community budget, both under the current financing system and under the Commission's proposals for a new structure of own resources, are contained in table 10 of the Commission's report COM(87)101. These show a gross contribution of 6,660 mecu (£4,883 million at the exchange rates assumed by the Commission) under the present system, and 6,354 mecu (£4,658 million) which would have been paid under the new proposals. The estimates do not take account of the 1987 supplementary and amending budget, but the relative effects of the two financing systems are not significantly affected by this.

  Tax Allowances
  Mr. Fearn
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to introduce allowances against tax for stock appreciation within a business and company.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 2 November 1987]: No. Stock appreciation relief was abolished as part of the business tax reforms in 1984. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no plans to revive it.

  Profits and Dividends
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the totals of profits and dividends repatriated to Britain from the Third world and to the Third world from Britain in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have been asked to reply.
  742
  The available information relates to overseas direct investment. The value of branch profits and dividends remitted to the United Kingdom from affiliates of United Kingdom companies in the developing countries and the value of branch profits and dividends remitted from United Kingdom companies to their parent companies in the developing countries are given in the table.

  The data relating to United Kingdom outward investment will be published in Business Monitor MA4 1985 in approximately two months' time.

  Remitted earnings from United Kingdom direct investment in developing countries1

  Remitted earnings from direct investment in the United Kingdom by the developing countries1

  Branch Profits

  Dividends

  Total

  Branch Profits

  Dividends

  Total

  £ million

  21981

  277

  284

  561

  45

  14

  59

  21982

  295

  324

  619

  57

  252

  309

  21983

  243

  424

  667

  45

  31

  76

  1984

  402

  896

  1,298

  11

  41

  52

  1985

  227

  1,221

  1,448

  6

  39

  45

  1 Developing countries are defined as Asia, Africa (excluding South Africa), Caribbean, Central and South America, Oceana and Yugoslavia.

  2 Excludes oil companies.

SCOTLAND

  Buses
  Mr. Darling
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to the total cost to each local authority in Scotland, excluding expenditure on concessionary travel (a) of providing bus services in 1985–86 and (b) of payments made to bus operators in the period from 26 October 1986 to 31 March 1987.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The amount of revenue support by each local authority for bus services shown in their final outturn for 1985–86 is as follows:

  Regional/Islands Council

  £ million

  Borders

  0·510

  Central

  1·271

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1·116

  Fife

  0·446

  Grampian

  -0·276

  Highland

  1·156

  Lothian

  3·736

  Strathclyde

  15·787

  Tayside

  1·504

  Orkney

  0·038

  Shetland

  0·244

  Western Isles

  0·416

  Total

  25·948

  1 Profit on local authority transport undertaking

  Figures are not available for local authority expenditure on payments to bus operators in the period from 26 October 1986 to 31 March 1987, but estimates which have been made suggest that payments have been running at an annual rate of around £15 million.

  Forestry
  Mr. Maxton
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all grants and tax exemptions currently

  743
  available for the planting of forestry in Scotland; and if he will give the number of applicants and the total take-up of each in each of the last five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Grant aid for forestry is provided under the Forestry Commission's forestry grant scheme and broadleaved woodland grant scheme, and I am arranging for copies of leaflets giving details of these schemes to be placed in the Library of the House. As regards taxation, a copy of Forestry Commission leaflet No. 12 "Taxation of Woodlands" is already available in the Library. This leaflet is currently being revised and a copy of the new version will be placed in the Library as soon as it is published.

  The information requested on grant scheme applications in Scotland is as follows

  Year ended 31 March

  Number of applications received

  Area approved for entry to the scheme (hectares)

  Area of planting (including restocking) for which grants were paid (hectares)

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  Forestry Grant Scheme

  1983

  513

  34,419

  5,959

  1984

  538

  34,096

  12,309

  1985

  590

  33,267

  13,648

  1986

  704

  37,562

  17,714

  1987

  992

  41,833

  17,411

  Broadleaved Woodland Grant Scheme (introduced on 1 October 1985)

  1986

  313

  313

  —

  1987

  599

  2,408

  336

  Note: The areas shown in column 3

  (a) include existing woodlands; and

  (b) over approvals for planting over a five-year period.

  Mr. Maxton
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the total acreage of forestry in Scotland in each of the last 10 years for which records are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table:

  Year (as at 31 March)

  Hectares (thousands)

  1978

  867

  1979

  883

  1980

  904

  1981

  921

  1982

  940

  1983

  978

  1984

  1,000

  1985

  1,017

  1986

  1,038

  1987

  1,067

  Scottish Legal Aid Board
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding the delay in payments to individuals by the Scottish Legal Aid Board of money paid to the board on their behalf and the refusal of the board to credit interest on the money to the individual concerned; what action he has taken in response; and if he will make a statement.
  744
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This specific topic has not featured in the various representations which my right hon. and learned Friend has received recently about legal aid.

  Doctors
  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what special transport facilities he is giving to general practitioners who, in order to discharge their duties, must travel through very difficult terrain, or which requires the crossing of lochs and rivers in rural Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  General practitioners are responsible for making their own transport arrangements, and the costs which they incur in so doing are met from the generality of fees and allowances. In addition, for those doctors who, in the course of the discharge of their practice duties, encounter difficult terrain and water journeys, my right hon. and learned Friend makes compensatory payments through the Scottish rural practices fund. The operation of this fund takes account of particular factors, such as the distance of patients' homes from the practice, the use of footpaths and travel by water.

  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of new full-time doctors needed to cover the need for primary care in the rural parts of Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of general medical practitioners practising in Scotland is kept under constant review by the Scottish medical practices committee whose duty it is to determine the adequacy of general medical services in each health board area. My right hon. and learned Friend has no evidence that the existing number of doctors is inadequate to meet the needs of patients in rural areas.

  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what urgent steps he is taking in order to solve the problems facing doctors in charge of primary care in rural Scotland, particularly in remote and low populated areas,

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The position of general medical practitioners in rural areas is currently being considered by my right hon. and learned Friend in the course of the review of primary health care, which followed publication of the Government's consultative document "Primary Health Care: An Agenda for Discussion". The conclusions reached on this review will be announced shortly in a White Paper.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he is satisfied with the quality of drinking water in Scotland;

  (2) what is his policy towards drinking water quality in Scotland in the light of the recent European Community report which finds that the drinking water is not up to the required standard.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government have not received such a report. The European Commission has written to the Government seeking clarification of a number of matters relating to the EC directive on the quality of water intended for human consumption (80/778/EEC). The Government are considering these matters and will reply to the Commission in due course.
  745
  Water authorities—the regional and islands councils—have a duty to provide a supply of wholesome water for domestic purposes. The quality of private water supplies is the responsibility of the owners, but the district and islands councils have powers and duties to ensure that such supplies are not a risk to public health.

  My right hon. and learned Friend considers that the local authorities are discharging their duties satisfactorily. He also considers that the quality of drinking water is generally satisfactory and that where necessary improvements are in progress or are planned.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact on the Scottish fishing industry of freezer trawler operations.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Two freezer trawlers, based at ports in England, currently operate in the main herring and mackerel fisheries; the granting of licences for three further freezer trawlers (two based in England, one in Scotland) was announced in January, but these additional licences are unlikely to be utilised until 1988. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food recently pointed out, freezer trawlers have a part to play in ensuring that this country can fully fish its quotas. The existing freezer trawlers have not had any appreciable impact on the 45 purse seine vessels which make up the main component of the Scottish-based pelagic fleet but this is something which I am keeping under close review.

  Visits
  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is planning a visit to Clydesdale in the near future.

  Mr. Rifkind
  No.

  Regional Development Grants
  Mr. McLeish
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been spent in Scotland at 1986 prices, on (a) regional development grant and (b) regional selective assistance for each year from 1979.

  Mr. Lang
  Total payments of regional selective assistance and regional development grant, at 1986 prices, to firms in Scotland between 1979–80 and 1986–87 are set out in the table below:

  £ million

  Year

  Payments of Regional Selective Assistance at constant (1986) prices

  Payments of Regional Development Grant at constant (1986) prices

  1979–80

  28·7

  115·8

  1980–81

  30·9

  157·2

  1981–82

  24·4

  1810

  1982–83

  23·7

  3390

  1983–84

  27·2

  161·6

  1984–85

  34·5

  117·6

  1985–86

  491

  108·5

  1986–87

  351

  166·8

  Mr. McLeish
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will reconsider the exclusion of Glenrothes new town from the areas designated in Scotland for regional development grants; and if he will make a statement.
  746
  Mr. Lang
  My righ hon. Friend is aware of concern about the assisted area status of Glenrothes new town but no review of assisted area designation is planned at the present time.

  British Rail (Scotland)
  Mrs. Ewing
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the total number and level of grants awarded by the Scottish Development Department to British Rail (Scotland) in each of the past five years, giving details of the projects for which such grants were allocated.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There were none.

  Advertising
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been spent by his Department on advertising in national newspapers in each of the past five years; and if he will provide a breakdown by newspaper titles.

  Mr. Rifkind
  [holding answer 3 November 1987]: The total expenditure by my Department on advertising in Scottish national, regional and local newspapers for the past five years was:

  £

  1982–83

  334,860

  1983–84

  387,400

  1984–85

  455,850

  1985–86

  318,560

  1986–87

  394,000

  These figures include production costs. A breakdown of expenditure in national and local newspapers could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  Hospital and Community Health Service, Lothian
  Mr. Home Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the annual change in available resources, taking into account the inflation of hospital and community health service costs, in the provision of the hospital and community health service in the Lothian health board area for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 2 November 1987]: No record is maintained of pay and price movements within the NHS in Scotland and it would not, in any event, be appropriate to apply a national index of pay and price movements to expenditure figures for individual health boards because the composition of that expenditure may differ substantially from the national average. The following table shows the year-on-year change in Lothian health board's revenue allocation for hospital and community health services, after adjustment for inflation as measured by the GDP deflator.

  Change over previous year

  £ million (at 1986–87 prices)

  Per cent.

  1980–81

  +18·764

  +9·44

  1981–82

  +2·837

  +1·30

  1982–83

  +1·823

  +0·83

  1983–84

  -0·218

  -0·10

  747

  £ million (at 1986–87 prices)

  Per cent.

  1984–85

  +4·483

  +2·02

  1985–86

  -2·276

  -1·00

  1986–87

  +10·942

  +4·88

  1987–88

  +6·386

  +2·72

  Monofilament Nets
  Mr. Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many convictions have been obtained, by sheriff court, under the monofilament banning order 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 26 October 1987]: The order in question is the Inshore Fishing (Prohibition of Carriage of Monofilament Gill Nets) (Scotland) Order 1986. Precise figures are not available and could not be obtained except at disproportionate cost. The indications are, however, that the number of cases is very small. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries has reported only one case under the order which resulted in a conviction.

  Rating Reform
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is in a position to estimate the number of service men who will have to pay the personal community charge in Scotland in its first year of operation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 26 October 1987]: My right hon. and learned Friend has made no such estimate. In 1986 about 19,700 United Kingdom service men were stationed in Scotland.

  £ million

  Performing arts

  Film

  Arts Council

  Successor Authorities

  British Film Institute

  Successor Authorities

  London

  9·470

  10·585

  0·838

  0·493

  Greater Manchester

  1·495

  0·934

  0·193

  0·101

  Merseyside

  1·223

  0·341

  0·142

  0·026

  South Yorkshire

  0·397

  0·186

  0·201

  0·008

  West Yorkshire

  0·764

  0·700

  Tyne and Wear

  1·532

  1·384

  0·431

  0·302

  West Midlands

  0·849

  0·471

  0·142

  0·071

  South Bank

  8·758

  —

  —

  —

  Reserve

  0·512

  —

  —

  —

  Administration

  —

  —

  0·060

  —

  Total

  25·000

  14·601

  12·007

  1·001

  1 Of this total £1·3 million represents the net increase in expenditure, post-abolition.

  For comparative information on grants to museums I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on 22 July 1987, at column 238.

  Factory Closures
  Mr. Gordon
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many factory closures have been reported to him in (a) Fife and (b) Scotland since June 1979.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 26 October 1987]: Information is not available in the precise form requested. It is provisionally estimated that between July 1979 and September 1987, 810 closures in Scotland involving 10 or more redundancies in manufacturing industry were confirmed to Manpower Services Commission. Comprehensive figures for Fife on the same basis cannot be provided since records are not completely allocated to some regions for some of the earlier years of the period.

  Education Statistics
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the number of PhDs awarded, by subject and institution, in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 26 October 1987]: The information is not readily available.

THE ARTS

  Financial Provision
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Minister for the Arts what is the latest assessment his Department has made of the effect of the abolition of the metropolitan authorities on arts spending and arts provision in the areas concerned; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  Replacement expenditure in 1986–87 by the Arts Council, the British Film Institute and successor authorities in those areas affected by abolition was as follows:

  Regional Arts Councils
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Minister for the Arts if he will provide figures for each of the last five years, and the estimates for 1987 and 1988, in real and cash terms, to show spending by each of the regional arts councils.

  Mr. Luce
  The information requested is as follows:
  749

  £ million

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  11987–88 (Estimate)

  Greater London Arts

  Cash terms

  1·464

  1·487

  1·584

  1·791

  7·858

  7·910

  Real terms

  1·464

  1·422

  1·450

  1·547

  6·587

  6·345

  Northern Arts

  Cash terms

  1·733

  1·819

  1·939

  2·087

  3·492

  3·511

  Real terms

  1·733

  1·739

  1·776

  1·802

  2·927

  2·816

  West Midlands Arts

  Cash terms

  1·035

  1·100

  1·222

  1·558

  2·232

  2·276

  Real terms

  1·035

  1·052

  1·119

  1·345

  1·871

  1·826

  Yorkshire Arts

  Cash terms

  0·717

  0·738

  0·842

  1·339

  2·050

  2·068

  Real terms

  0·717

  0·706

  0·771

  1·156

  1·718

  1·659

  North West Arts

  Cash terms

  0·865

  0·932

  1·032

  1·494

  1·958

  1·995

  Real terms

  0·865

  0·891

  0·945

  1·290

  1·641

  1·600

  East Midlands Arts

  Cash terms

  0·825

  0·927

  1·061

  1·627

  1·759

  1·834

  Real terms

  0·825

  0·886

  0·972

  1·405

  1·474

  1·471

  Eastern Arts

  Cash terms

  0·690

  0·728

  0·890

  1·145

  1·630

  1·705

  Real terms

  0·690

  0·696

  0·815

  0·989

  1·366

  1·368

  South West Arts

  Cash terms

  0·876

  0·884

  0·971

  1·225

  1·530

  1·599

  Real terms

  0·876

  0·845

  0·889

  1·058

  1·283

  1·283

  Southern Arts

  Cash terms

  0·850

  0·884

  0·995

  1·172

  1·274

  1·329

  Real terms

  0·850

  0·845

  0·911

  1·012

  1·068

  1·066

  South East Arts

  Cash terms

  0·540

  0·582

  0·629

  1·086

  1·223

  1·278

  Real terms

  0·540

  0·556

  0·576

  0·938

  1·025

  1·025

  Lines and Humberside Arts

  Cash terms

  0·523

  0·557

  0·591

  0·783

  0·853

  0·892

  Real terms

  0·523

  0·533

  0·541

  0·676

  0·715

  0·716

  1 Estimate

  Research Specialists
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Minister for the Arts what is the total number of operational research specialists in his Department, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Luce
  There have been no operational research specialists employed in the Office of Arts and Libraries since its establishment as a separate Department in 1983.

  Advertising
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Minister for the Arts how much has been spent by his Department on advertising in national newspapers in each of the past five years; and if he will provide a breakdown by newspaper titles.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 3 November 1987]: My Department has spent nothing on advertising in national newspapers in the past five years.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Schizophrenia
  Mr. Goodlad
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many current occupants of National Health Service hospital and unit beds have a main diagnosis of schizophrenic psychosis in each health region; what those figures are as percentages of (a) mental and (b) all hospital beds in each region; and how figures compare with each of the past five years.

  Mrs. Currie
  I am sorry I cannot give my hon. Friend the information he seeks as it is not centrally collected. Statistics on the numbers of long-stay residents with particular mental illnesses will be available in the future following the implementation of new data collection systems throughout the National Health Service from April 1987.

  Mr. Goodlad
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the admissions by diagnosis and order of admissions, including percentage change in

  751
  numbers and rates per 100,000 populations, of patients suffering from schizophrenic psychosis in each of the health regions for the years 1984–86 inclusive.

  Admissions to Mental Illness hospitals and units in England of persons with diagnoses of Schizophrenic psychosis 1984, 1985 and 1986.

  Admissions

  Percentage change in numbers

  Rates per 100,000 population

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1984

  1985

  1986

  All Admissions

  England

  24,998

  25,925

  25,046

  +3·7

  -3·4

  53

  55

  53

  Northern

  1,835

  1,815

  1,744

  -1·1

  -3·9

  59

  59

  57

  Yorkshire

  2,218

  2,210

  2,237

  -0·4

  +1·2

  62

  61

  62

  Trent

  2,036

  2,130

  1,950

  +4·6

  -8·5

  44

  46

  42

  East Anglian

  712

  766

  756

  +7·6

  -1·3

  37

  39

  38

  North West Thames

  2,272

  2,287

  2,316

  +0·7

  +1·3

  65

  66

  66

  North East Thames

  2,473

  2,583

  2,551

  +4·4

  -1·2

  66

  69

  68

  South East Thames

  1,939

  1,994

  1,860

  +2·8

  -6·7

  61

  63

  60

  South West Thames

  1,707

  1,680

  1,597

  -1·6

  -4·9

  58

  57

  54

  Wessex

  1,447

  1,450

  1,537

  +0·2

  +6·0

  51

  51

  53

  Oxford

  670

  813

  773

  +21·3

  -4·9

  28

  33

  31

  South Western

  1,228

  1,267

  1,178

  +3·2

  -7·0

  39

  40

  37

  West Midlands

  2,362

  2,422

  2,417

  +2·5

  -0·2

  46

  47

  47

  Mersey

  1,248

  1,412

  1,322

  +13·1

  -6·4

  51

  58

  55

  North Western

  2,612

  2,804

  2,503

  +7·4

  -10·7

  65

  70

  63

  Bethlem Royal and Maudsley1

  239

  292

  305

  +22·2

  +4·5

  —

  —

  —

  First Admissions

  England

  2,742

  2,687

  2,523

  -2·0

  -6·1

  6

  6

  5

  Northern

  227

  199

  186

  -12·3

  -6·5

  7

  6

  6

  Yorkshire

  252

  235

  258

  -6·7

  +9·8

  7

  7

  7

  Trent

  322

  323

  261

  +0·3

  -19·2

  7

  7

  7

  East Anglian

  78

  80

  66

  +2·6

  -17·5

  4

  4

  3

  North West Thames

  289

  247

  245

  -14·5

  -0·8

  8

  7

  7

  North East Thames

  127

  154

  151

  +21·3

  -1·9

  3

  4

  4

  South East Thames

  212

  206

  181

  -2·8

  -12·1

  7

  7

  6

  South West Thames

  143

  127

  110

  -11·2

  -13·4

  5

  4

  4

  Wessex

  150

  158

  172

  +5·3

  +8·9

  5

  6

  6

  Oxford

  111

  83

  68

  -25·2

  -18·1

  5

  3

  3

  South Western

  136

  133

  138

  -2·2

  +3·8

  4

  4

  4

  West Midlands

  264

  285

  273

  +8·0

  -4·2

  5

  5

  5

  Mersey

  98

  122

  118

  +24·5

  -3·3

  4

  5

  5

  North Western

  294

  298

  244

  +1·4

  -18·1

  7

  7

  6

  Bethlem Royal and Maudsley1

  39

  37

  52

  -5·1

  +40·5

  —

  —

  —

  THE FIGURES FOR THIS HOSPITAL HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE FIGURES FOR SOUTH EAST THAMES FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE RTES PER 100,000 POPULATION.

  Mr. Goodlad
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the discharges and deaths by length of stay, including percentage change in numbers and

  Deaths, by length of stay, of persons from Mental Illness hospitals and units in England with diagnosis of Schizophrenic psychosis, 1984, 1985 and 1986

  Numbers

  Percentage change in numbers

  Percentage distribution

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1984

  1985

  1986

  England

  All lengths

  1,018

  950

  963

  -6·1

  +1·4

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  Under 1 month

  69

  78

  72

  +13·0

  -7·7

  6·8

  8·2

  7·5

  1 month

  53

  44

  49

  -17·0

  +11·4

  5·2

  4·6

  5·1

  3 months

  80

  61

  71

  -23·8

  +16·4

  7·9

  6·4

  7·4

  1 year

  110

  113

  119

  +2·7

  +5·3

  10·8

  11·9

  12·4

  5 years

  172

  143

  144

  -16·9

  +0·7

  16·9

  15·1

  15·0

  15 years and over

  534

  511

  508

  -4·3

  -0·6

  52·5

  53·8

  52·8

  Northern

  All lengths

  79

  75

  79

  -51

  -5·3

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  Under 1 month

  11

  6

  3

  -45·5

  -16·7

  13·9

  8·0

  3·8

  1 month

  4

  5

  2

  +25·0

  -60·0

  5·1

  6·7

  2·5

  3 months

  9

  4

  3

  -55·6

  -25·0

  11·4

  5·3

  3·8

  752
  Mrs. Currie
  The information is in the following table.

  percentage distribution, of patients suffering from schizophrenic psychosis in each of the health regions for the years 1984–86 inclusive.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information is in the following table.
  753

  Numbers

  Percentage change in numbers

  Percentage distribution

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1 year

  11

  15

  15

  +36·4

  —

  13·9

  20·0

  19·0

  5 years

  13

  11

  14

  -15·4

  +27·3

  16·5

  14·7

  17·7

  15 years and over

  31

  34

  42

  +9·7

  +23·5

  39·2

  45·3

  53·2

  Yorkshire

  All lengths

  77

  84

  79

  +9·1

  -6·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  Under 1 month

  6

  8

  6

  +33·3

  -25·0

  7·8

  9·5

  7·6

  1 month

  2

  6

  7

  +200·0

  +16·7

  2·6

  7·1

  8·9

  3 months

  8

  4

  7

  +50·0

  +75·0

  10·4

  4·8

  8·9

  1 year

  11

  10

  15

  -9·1

  +50·0

  14·3

  11·9

  19·0

  5 years

  16

  13

  6

  -18·8

  -53·8

  20·8

  15·5

  7·6

  15 years and over

  34

  43

  38

  +26·5

  -11·6

  44·2

  51·2

  48·1

  Trent

  All lengths

  70

  81

  72

  +15·7

  -11·1

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  Under 1 month

  7

  8

  8

  +14·3

  —

  10·0

  9·9

  11·1

  1 month

  4

  2

  3

  -50·0

  +50·0

  5·7

  2·5

  4·2

  3 months

  7

  4

  1

  -42·9

  -75·0

  10·0

  4·9

  1·4

  1 year

  6

  12

  13

  +100·0

  +8·3

  8·6

  14·8

  18·1

  5 years

  10

  12

  12

  +20·0

  —

  14·3

  14·8

  16·7

  15 years and over

  36

  43

  35

  +19·4

  -18·6

  51·4

  53·1

  48·6

  East Anglian

  All lengths

  32

  19

  38

  -40·6

  +100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  Under 1 month

  —

  4

  8

  —

  +100·0

  —

  21·0

  21·1

  1 month

  3

  —

  3

  —

  —

  9·4

  —

  7·9

  3 months

  2

  3

  4

  +50·0

  +33·3

  6·3

  15·8

  10·5

  1 year

  3

  4

  8

  +33·3

  +100·0

  9·4

  21·1

  21·1

  5 years

  7

  4

  8

  -42·9

  +100·0

  21·9

  21·1

  21·1

  15 years and over

  17

  4

  7

  -76·5

  +75·0

  53·1

  21·1

  18·4

  North West Thames

  All lengths

  98

  72

  80

  -26·5

  +1·1

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  Under 1 month

  4

  1

  4

  -75·0

  +300·1

  4·1

  1·4

  5·0

  1 month

  5

  2

  6

  -60·0

  +200·0

  5·1

  2·8

  7·5

  3 months

  7

  5

  10

  -28·6

  +100·0

  7·1

  6·9

  12·5

  1 year

  9

  9

  8

  —

  -11·1

  9·2

  12·5

  10·0

  5 years

  13

  6

  7

  -53·8

  +16·7

  13·3

  8·3

  8·8

  15 years and over

  60

  49

  45

  -18·5

  -8·2

  61·2

  68·1

  56·2

  North East Thames

  All lengths

  90

  90

  77

  —

  -14·4

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  Under 1 month

  5

  10

  5

  +100·0

  -50·0

  5·6

  11·1

  6·5

  1 month

  4

  4

  6

  —

  +50·0

  4·4

  4·4

  7·8

  3 months

  5

  9

  5

  +80·0

  -44·4

  5·6

  10·0

  6·5

  1 year

  11

  11

  11

  —

  —

  12·2

  12·2

  14·3

  5 years

  15

  9

  9

  -40·0

  —

  16·7

  10·0

  11·7

  15 years and over

  50

  47

  41

  -6·0

  -12·8

  55·6

  52·2

  53·2

  South East Thames

  All lengths

  92

  73

  68

  -20·7

  -6·8

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  Under 1 month

  7

  3

  4

  -57·1

  +33·3

  7·6

  4·1

  5·9

  1 month

  9

  6

  4

  -33·3

  -33·3

  9·8

  8·2

  5·9

  3 months

  8

  4

  12

  -50·0

  +200·0

  8·7

  5·5

  17·6

  1 year

  8

  8

  8

  —

  —

  8·7

  11·0

  11·8

  5 years

  17

  16

  10

  -5·9

  -37·5

  18·5

  21·9

  14·7

  15 years and over

  43

  36

  30

  -16·3

  -16·7

  46·7

  49·3

  44·1

  South West Thames

  All lengths

  104

  111

  125 +6·7

  +12·6

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  Under 1 month

  7

  5

  3

  -28·6

  -40·0

  6·7

  4·5

  2·4

  1 month

  7

  4

  2

  -42·9

  -50·0

  6·7

  3·6

  1·6

  3 months

  2

  7

  6

  +250·0

  -14·3

  1·9

  6·3

  4·8

  1 year

  11

  10

  11

  -9·1

  +10·0

  10·6

  9·0

  8·8

  5 years

  15

  12

  18

  -20·0

  +50·0

  14·4

  10·8

  14·4

  15 years and over

  62

  73

  85

  +17·7

  +16·4

  59·6

  65·8

  68·0

  Wessex

  All lengths

  61

  60

  55

  -1·6

  -8·3

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  Under 1 month

  3

  5

  4

  +66·7

  -20·0

  4·9

  8·3

  7·3

  1 month

  3

  4

  1

  +33·3

  -75·0

  4·9

  6·7

  1·8

  3 months

  6

  3

  —

  -50·0

  —

  9·8

  5·0

  —

  1 year

  9

  8

  5

  -11·1

  -37·5

  14·8

  13·3

  9·1

  5 years

  8

  9

  10

  +12·5

  +11·1

  13·1

  15·0

  18·2

  15 years and over

  32

  31

  35

  -3·1

  +12·9

  52·5

  51·7

  63·6

  754 755

  Numbers

  Percentage change in numbers

  Percentage distribution

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Oxford

  All lengths

  27

  32

  19

  +18·5

  -40·6

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  Under 1 month

  4

  5

  3

  +25·0

  -40·0

  14·8

  15·6

  15·8

  1 month

  3

  4

  1

  +33·3

  -75·0

  11·1

  12·5

  5·3

  3 months

  4

  4

  4

  —

  —

  14·8

  12·5

  21·1

  1 year

  2

  2

  2

  —

  —

  7·4

  6·2

  10·5

  5 years

  4

  —

  1

  —

  —

  14·8

  —

  5·3

  15 years and over

  111

  17

  8

  +70·0

  -53·0

  37·0

  53·1

  42·1

  South Western

  All lengths

  68

  54

  53

  -20·6

  -1·9

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  Under 1 month

  4

  6

  11

  +50·0

  +83·3

  5·9

  11·1

  20·8

  1 month

  3

  4

  2

  +33·3

  -50·0

  4·4

  7·4

  3·8

  3 months

  8

  1

  6

  -87·5

  +500·0

  11·8

  1·9

  11·3

  1 year

  8

  6

  6

  -25·0

  —

  11·8

  11·1

  11·3

  5 years

  15

  8

  9

  -46·7

  +12·5

  22·1

  14·8

  17·0

  15 years and over

  30

  29

  19

  -3·3

  -34·5

  44·1

  53·7

  35·8

  West Midlands

  All lengths

  84

  66

  81

  -21·4

  +22·7

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  Under 1 month

  2

  2

  7

  —

  +250·0

  2·4

  3·0

  8·6

  1 month

  2

  1

  3

  -50·0

  +200·0

  2·4

  1·5

  3·7

  3 months

  8

  7

  5

  -12·5

  -28·6

  9·5

  10·6

  6·2

  1 year

  10

  5

  7

  -50·0

  +40·0

  11·9

  7·6

  8·6

  5 years

  19

  19

  16

  —

  -15·8

  22·6

  28·8

  19·8

  15 years and over

  43

  32

  43

  -25·6

  +34·4

  51·2

  48·5

  53·1

  Mersey

  All lengths

  66

  53

  53

  -19·7

  —

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  Under 1 month

  7

  6

  2

  -14·3

  -66·7

  10·6

  11·3

  3·8

  1 month

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1·5

  —

  3·8

  3 months

  4

  2

  1

  -50·0

  -50·0

  6·1

  3·8

  1·9

  1 year

  4

  9

  4

  +125·0

  -55·6

  6·1

  17·0

  7·5

  5 years

  14

  13

  12

  -7·1

  -7·7

  21·2

  24·5

  22·6

  15 years and over

  36

  23

  32

  -36·1

  +39·1

  54·5

  43·4

  60·4

  North Western

  All lengths

  66

  79

  79

  +19·7

  —

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  Under 1 month

  1

  8

  3

  +700·0

  -62·5

  1·5

  10·1

  3·8

  1 month

  3

  2

  6

  -33·3

  +200·0

  4·5

  2·5

  7·6

  3 months

  2

  4

  4

  +100·0

  —

  3·0

  5·1

  5·1

  1 year

  4

  4

  6

  —

  -50·0

  6·1

  5·1

  7·6

  5 years

  6

  11

  12

  +83·3

  +9·1

  9·1

  14·0

  15·2

  15 years and over

  50

  50

  48

  —

  -4·0

  75·8

  63·3

  60·8

  Bethlem Royal1 and Maudsley

  All lengths

  4

  1

  5

  -75·0

  +400·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  Under 1 month

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  25·0

  100·0

  20·0

  1 month

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20·0

  3 months

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  60·0

  1 year

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  75·0

  —

  —

  5 years

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15 years and over

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 The figures for this hospital have been included in the figures for South East Thames.

  Source: Mental Health Enquiry.

  Discharges, by length of stay, of persons from Mental Illness hospitals and units in England with diagnoses of Schizophrenic psychosis 1984, 1985 and 1986

  Numbers

  Percentage change in numbers

  Percentage distribution

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1984

  1985

  1986

  England

  All lengths

  25,934

  26,225

  26,077

  +1·1

  -0·6

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  Under 1 month

  13,093

  13,617

  13,307

  +4·0

  -2·3

  50·5

  51·9

  51·0

  1 month

  7,506

  7,484

  7,358

  -0·3

  -1·7

  28·9

  28·5

  28·2

  3 months

  3,323

  3,330

  3,472

  +0·2

  +4·3

  12·8

  12·7

  13·3

  1 year

  1,155

  935

  961

  -19·0

  +2·8

  4·5

  3·6

  3·7

  5 years

  370

  359

  387

  -3·0

  +7·8

  1·4

  1·4

  1·5

  15 years and over

  487

  500

  592

  +2·7

  +18·4

  1·9

  1·9

  2·3

  Northern

  All lengths

  1,858

  1,799

  1,767

  -3·2

  -1·8

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  756 757

  Numbers

  Percentage change in numbers

  Percentage distribution

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Under 1 month

  944

  940

  947

  —

  +1·0

  50·8

  52·3

  53·6

  1 month

  552

  545

  508

  -1·3

  -6·8

  29·7

  30·3

  28·7

  3 months

  186

  207

  202

  +11·3

  -2·4

  10·0

  11·5

  11·4

  1 year

  127

  57

  66

  -55·1

  +15·8

  6·8

  3·2

  3·7

  5 years

  22

  23

  23

  +4·5

  —

  1·2

  1·3

  1·3

  15 years and over

  27

  27

  21

  +—

  -22·2

  1·5

  1·5

  1·2

  Yorkshire

  All lengths

  2,294

  2,199

  2,282

  -4·1

  +3·8

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  Under 1 month

  1,273

  1,274

  1,327

  +0·1

  +4·2

  55·5

  57·9

  58·2

  1 month

  624

  577

  607

  -7·5

  +5·2

  27·2

  26·2

  26·6

  3 months

  221

  200

  218

  -9·5

  +9·0

  9·6

  9·1

  9·6

  1 year

  70

  75

  57

  +7·1

  -24·0

  3·1

  3·4

  2·5

  5 years

  32

  27

  21

  -15·6

  -22·2

  1·4

  1·2

  0·9

  15 years and over

  74

  46

  52

  -37·8

  +13·0

  3·2

  2·1

  2·3

  Trent

  All lengths

  2,156

  2,112

  2,064

  -2·0

  -2·3

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  Under 1 month

  1,020

  1,097

  1,008

  +7·5

  -8·1

  47·3

  51·9

  48·8

  1 month

  692

  621

  613

  -10·3

  -1·3

  32·1

  29·4

  29·7

  3 months

  274

  239

  275

  -12·8

  +15·1

  12·7

  11·3

  13·3

  1 year

  97

  87

  81

  -10·3

  -6·9

  4·5

  4·1

  3·9

  5 years

  34

  32

  39

  -5·9

  +21·9

  1·6

  1·5

  1·9

  15 years and over

  39

  36

  48

  -7·7

  +33·3

  1·8

  1·7

  2·3

  East Anglian

  All lengths

  772

  765

  791

  -0·9

  +3·4

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  Under 1 month

  360

  376

  352

  +4·4

  -6·4

  46·6

  49·2

  44·5

  1 month

  204

  189

  225

  -7·4

  +19·0

  26·4

  24·7

  28·4

  3 months

  127

  113

  133

  -11·0

  +17·7

  16·5

  14·8

  16·8

  1 year

  51

  43

  48

  -15·7

  +11·6

  6·6

  5·6

  6·1

  5 years

  16

  15

  16

  -6·2

  +6·7

  2·1

  2·0

  2·0

  15 years and over

  14

  29

  17

  +107·1

  +41·4

  1·8

  3·8

  2·1

  North West Thames

  All lengths

  2,373

  2,397

  2,469

  +1·0

  +3·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  Under 1 month

  1,206

  1,246

  1,186

  +3·3

  -4·8

  50·8

  52·0

  48·0

  1 month

  698

  669

  649

  -4·2

  -3·0

  29·4

  27·9

  26·3

  3 months

  305

  326

  311

  +6·9

  -4·6

  12·9

  13·6

  12·6

  1 year

  85

  77

  109

  -9·4

  +41·6

  3·6

  3·2

  4·4

  5 years

  30

  23

  47

  -23·3

  +104·3

  1·3

  1·0

  1·9

  15 years and over

  49

  56

  167

  +14·3

  +198·2

  2·1

  2·3

  6·8

  North East Thames

  All lengths

  2,562

  2,596

  2,663

  +1·3

  +2·6

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  Under 1 month

  1,307

  1,319

  1,313

  +0·9

  -0·5

  51·0

  50·8

  49·3

  1 month

  759

  753

  815

  -0·8

  +8·2

  29·6

  29·0

  30·6

  3 months

  328

  331

  352

  +0·9

  +6·3

  12·8

  12·8

  13·2

  1 year

  87

  103

  110

  +18·4

  +6·8

  3·4

  4·0

  4·1

  5 years

  37

  36

  32

  -2·7

  -11·1

  1·4

  1·4

  1·2

  15 years and over

  44

  54

  41

  +22·7

  -24·1

  1·7

  2·1

  1·5

  South East Thames

  All lengths

  1,983

  2,052

  1,927

  +3·5

  -6·1

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  Under 1 month

  961

  1,020

  1,050

  +6·1

  +2·9

  48·5

  49·7

  54·5

  1 month

  567

  605

  531

  +6·7

  -12·2

  28·6

  29·5

  27·6

  3 months

  297

  278

  245

  -6·4

  -11·9

  15·0

  13·5

  12·7

  1 year

  90

  63

  61

  -30·0

  -3·2

  4·5

  3·1

  3·2

  5 years

  29

  35

  24

  +20·7

  -31·4

  1·5

  1·7

  1·2

  15 years and over

  39

  51

  16

  +30·8

  -68·8

  2·0

  2·5

  0·8

  South West Thames

  All lengths

  1,713

  1,685

  1,615

  -1·6

  -4·2

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  Under 1 month

  871

  847

  791

  -2·8

  -6·6

  50·8

  50·3

  49·0

  1 month

  449

  492

  459

  -9·6

  -6·7

  26·2

  29·2

  28·4

  3 months

  250

  240

  235

  -4·0

  -2·1

  14·6

  14·2

  14·6

  1 year

  89

  54

  67

  -39·3

  +24·1

  5·2

  3·2

  4·1

  5 years

  24

  21

  30

  -12·5

  +42·9

  1·4

  1·2

  1·9

  15 years and over

  30

  31

  33

  +3·3

  +6·5

  1·8

  1·8

  2·0

  Wessex

  All lengths

  1,452

  1,443

  1,551

  -0·6

  +7·5

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  Under 1 month

  790

  805

  849

  +1·9

  +5·5

  54·4

  55·8

  54·7

  1 month

  386

  358

  385

  -7·3

  +7·5

  26·6

  24·8

  24·8

  3 months

  168

  180

  184

  -7·1

  +2·2

  11·6

  12·5

  11·9

  758 759

  Numbers

  Percentage change in numbers

  Percentage distribution

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1 year

  74

  57

  62

  -23·0

  +8·8

  5·1

  4·0

  4·0

  5 years

  11

  16

  26

  +45·5

  +62·5

  0·8

  1·1

  1·7

  15 years and over

  23

  27

  45

  +17·4

  +66·7

  1·6

  1·9

  2·9

  Oxford

  All lengths

  707

  781

  845

  +10·5

  +8·2

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  Under 1 month

  341

  368

  419

  +7·9

  +13·9

  48·2

  47·1

  49·6

  1 month

  222

  251

  236

  +13·1

  -6·0

  31·4

  32·1

  27·9

  3 months

  94

  104

  122

  +10·6

  +17·3

  13·3

  13·3

  14·4

  1 year

  25

  28

  33

  +12·0

  +17·9

  3·5

  3·6

  3·9

  5 years

  10

  12

  15

  +20·0

  +25·0

  1·4

  1·5

  1·8

  15 years and over

  15

  18

  20

  +20·0

  +11·1

  2·1

  2·3

  2·4

  South Western

  All lengths

  1,280

  1,304

  1,264

  +1·9

  -3·1

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  Under 1 month

  609

  635

  569

  +4·3

  -10·4

  47·6

  48·7

  45·0

  1 month

  323

  361

  365

  +11·8

  +1·1

  25·2

  27·7

  28·9

  3 months

  192

  185

  198

  -3·6

  +7·0

  15·0

  14·2

  15·7

  1 year

  72

  58

  64

  -19·4

  410·3

  5·6

  4·4

  5·1

  5 years

  21

  31

  27

  +47·6

  -12·9

  1·6

  2·4

  2·1

  15 years and over

  63

  34

  41

  -46·0

  +20·6

  4·9

  2·4

  3·2

  West Midlands

  All lengths

  2,485

  2,458

  2,478

  -1·1

  +0·8

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  Under 1 month

  1,169

  1,182

  1,213

  +1·1

  +2·6

  47·0

  48·1

  49·0

  1 month

  725

  731

  695

  +0·8

  -4·9

  29·2

  29·7

  28·0

  3 months

  364

  377

  401

  +3·6

  +6·4

  14·6

  15·3

  16·2

  1 year

  139

  98

  73

  -29·5

  -25·5

  5·6

  4·0

  2·9

  5 years

  58

  41

  54

  -29·3

  +31·7

  2·3

  1·7

  2·2

  15 years and over

  30

  29

  42

  -3·3

  +44·8

  1·2

  1·2

  1·7

  Mersey

  All lengths

  1,377

  1,488

  1,412

  +8·1

  -5·1

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  Under 1 month

  725

  782

  740

  +7·9

  -5·4

  52·6

  52·6

  52·4

  1 month

  365

  405

  378

  +11·0

  -6·7

  76·5

  27·2

  27·8

  3 months

  168

  171

  202

  +2·8

  +18·1

  12·2

  11·5

  14·3

  1 year

  64

  60

  49

  -6·2

  -18·3

  4·6

  4·0

  3·5

  5 years

  23

  23

  19

  —

  -17·4

  1·7

  1·5

  1·3

  15 years and over

  32

  47

  24

  +46·9

  -48·9

  2·3

  3·2

  1·7

  North Western

  All lengths

  2,683

  2,875

  2,621

  +7·2

  -8·8

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  Under 1 month

  1,436

  1,626

  1,401

  +13·2

  -13·8

  53·5

  56·6

  53·5

  1 month

  860

  834

  795

  -3·0

  -4·7

  32·1

  29·0

  30·3

  3 months

  292

  308

  318

  +5·5

  +3·2

  11·9

  10·7

  12·1

  1 year

  65

  69

  69

  +6·2

  —

  2·4

  2·4

  2·6

  5 years

  22

  23

  13

  +4·5

  -43·5

  0·8

  0·8

  0·5

  15 years and over

  8

  15

  25

  +87·5

  +66·7

  0·3

  0·5

  1·0

  Bethlem Royal1 and Maudsley

  All lengths

  239

  271

  328

  +13·4

  +21·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  Under 1 month

  81

  100

  142

  +23·5

  +42·0

  33·9

  36·9

  43·3

  1 month

  80

  93

  97

  +16·2

  +4·3

  33·5

  34·3

  29·6

  3 months

  57

  71

  76

  +24·6

  +7·0

  23·8

  26·2

  23·2

  1 year

  20

  6

  12

  -70·0

  +100·0

  8·4

  2·2

  3·7

  5 years

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  0·4

  0·4

  0·3

  15 years and over

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 The figures for this hospital have been included in the figures for South East Thames for the purpose of the rates per 100,000 population.

  Source: Mental Health Enquiry.

  Domestic Heating Standards
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what assessment he has made of the standard of heating in British homes, particularly in the case of elderly people and people on low incomes.

  Mr. Portillo
  No studies have been made by this Department of the standard of heating itself. However, help with the cost of heating for elderly people and those on low incomes is available through the weekly supplementary benefit scale rates and heating additions.

  Mortality Statistics
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, what was the total number of deaths among those aged (a) 60 to 69 years, (b) 70 to 79 years and (c) 80 years and over for the period 1 October 1986 to 31 December 1986.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information is shown in the table.
  761

  Number of death registrations by age-group

  1 October—31 December 1986, England and Wales.

  Age-Group

  (a) 60–69

  (b) 70–79

  (c) 80 +

  Number of deaths

  25,108

  45,108

  50,357

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his reply of 1 July, Official Report, column 115, when he expects to process data relating to the numbers of deaths among those aged (a) 60 to 69 years, (b) 70 to 79 years and (c) 80 years and over for the period 1 January to 31 March.

  Mrs. Currie
  The data have been processed and are shown in the table:

  Number of death registrations by age-group,

  1 January—31 March 1987 England and Wales.

  Age-Group

  (a) 60–69

  (b) 70–79

  (c) 80 +

  Number of deaths

  26,421

  48,853

  59,126

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the number of cases where hypothermia was mentioned on the death certificate for each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and how many of each annual total were of people aged (a) 65 years and over and (b) 80 years and over.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information is shown in the table.

  Number of death registrations with mention of hypothermia on the death certificate, all ages, aged 65 and over, and aged 80 and over, 1977 to 1986, England and Wales

  Year

  All ages

  65 and over

  80 and over

  1977

  613

  509

  280

  1978

  708

  597

  327

  11979

  863

  688

  374

  1980

  596

  497

  237

  1981

  685

  574

  326

  1982

  664

  541

  319

  1983

  538

  450

  261

  1984

  555

  462

  257

  1985

  827

  709

  417

  1986

  848

  708

  443

  Basic salary1 £

  Units of medical time

  Grade

  21984–85

  31985–86

  41986–87

  As a percentage of one tenth of basic salary: 1984–85, 1985–86 and 1986–87

  5 Class A

  6Class B

  House Officer

  8,090

  8,590

  9,180

  38

  10

  Senior House Officer

  10,130

  10,760

  11,510

  38

  10

  Registrar

  12,270

  13,030

  13,950

  34

  10

  Senior Registrar

  14,710

  15,630

  16,750

  30

  10

  1 Scale maximum.

  2 With effect from 1 November 1984.

  3 With effect from 1 June 1985.

  4 With effect from 1 July 1986.

  5 For standing-by or working in hospital, or at home, where the practitioner's availability is such that he is as fully on stand-by as if he were on stand-by at the hospital.

  6 For availability on call.

  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what specific action he plans to take to reduce the hours worked by junior hospital doctors.
  762
  1 1977–78 International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 8th Revision code 778·9 (pt). 1979–86 ICD 9th Revision 991·6 and 778·3.

  Cranial Osteopaths
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services which health districts in the United Kingdom fund the treatment of patients by cranial osteopaths.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information is not held centrally on the funding of individual forms of treatment provided through the National Health Service. General practitioners and hospital doctors are free to recommend any form of treatment which in their clinical judgment will benefit an individual patient's condition.

  Doctors
  Mr. Cousins
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services in the area of the Northern regional health authority, what was the average basic rate of pay for junior hospital doctor grades in the years 1984–85, 1985–86 and 1986–87; what was the average income from overtime pay in each of those years; and what were the average numbers of overtime hours worked expressed as an annual and an average figure for each working week.

  Mr. Newton
  The hon. Member may wish to approach the Northern regional health authority for this information, which is not available centrally in the form requested. The basic rate of salary for junior hospital doctors is related to the first 40 hours of duty. They may receive payments additional to basic salary for each unit of medical time (UMT), being four hours of duty, which they are contractually required to perform in excess of 40 hours. The relevant rates are shown in the table. Practitioners may also receive additional earnings from duty performed outside their normal contracted hours for their own or another employing authority.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Members for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) and for Southport (Mr. Fearn) on 3 November.
  763
  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what specific steps he proposes to take to increase the number of hospital doctors.

  Mr. Newton
  It is for health authorities to determine the number of hospital doctors they require to meet their service objectives, within broad national priorities, but taking account of local needs and circumstances. The Department's role is to ensure an adequate supply of doctors at all stages in the career progression to meet those needs. Decisions on the overall supply of doctors will be taken in the light of advice from an advisory committee on medical manpower planning, but a preliminary assessment is that the current supply is sufficient to sustain a steady growth in the number of hospital doctors. Decisions on the number of training programmes in individual specialties are taken in the light of advice from a joint planning advisory committee, and where necessary additional posts are set up. Finally, to help to ensure that hospital medicine continues to be an attractive career option for young doctors, health departments have held discussions with the medical profession and with regional chairmen culminating in the publication of "Achieving a Balance—Plan for Action", which I announced on 27 October in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) at column 258. Among its provisions are a number of measures designed to increase the number of consultants, the introduction of a new intermediate-level staff grade, and a mechanism to relate the number of doctors in training to expected consultant opportunities.

  Speech Therapists
  Mr. Cousins
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the number of fully-trained speech therapists employed in each region of the National Health Service for 1984–85, 1985–86 and 1986–87; and what was the rate of turnover of fully-trained speech therapy staff in each region for those years.

  Mr. Newton
  Staff in post figures are shown in the table. Information on turnover of staff is not held centrally.

  National Health Service staff in post at 30 September

  Speech therapists by regional health authority and England

  Whole time equivalent1

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Northern regional health authority

  120

  130

  160

  Yorkshire regional health authority

  130

  140

  150

  Trent regional health authority

  200

  220

  250

  East Anglian regional health authority

  100

  100

  110

  North West Thames regional health authority

  180

  190

  210

  North East Thames regional health authority

  200

  220

  230

  South East Thames regional health authority

  180

  190

  210

  South West Thames regional health authority

  150

  150

  170

  Wessex regional health authority

  100

  120

  130

  Oxford regional health authority

  110

  130

  140

  South Western regional health authority

  150

  160

  170

  West Midlands regional health authority

  210

  240

  250

  Mersey regional health authority

  90

  100

  100

  North Western regional health authority

  210

  210

  220

  London PGSHAs

  20

  30

  30

  ENGLAND TOTAL

  2,150

  2,340

  2,510

  764
  Source: DHSS (SR7) Annual Census of National Health Service non-medical manpower.

  1 Figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten (10) whole time equivalents.

  St. Nicholas Mental Illness Hospital, Newcastle
  Mr. Cousins
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, in the light of the refusal on appeal of planning permission for a Fine Fare superstore in the grounds of St. Nicholas mental illness hospital, Newcastle, and the consequent loss of capital recession, if he will make a special capital allocation available to Newcastle district health authority to allow that authority's programme of transferring mental illness patients into the community to continue.

  Mr. Newton
  The allocation of capital moneys to Newcastle district health authority is the responsibility of the Northern regional health authority.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will announce the allocation of the social fund grants and loans budgets for 1988–89 to individual local offices.

  Mr. Scott
  Allocations to each individual local office in Great Britain which will administer the fund, together with totals for each social security region, are listed as follows.

  Scotland

  Grants budget

  Loans budget

  £

  £

  Aberdeen North

  130,238

  306,935

  Aberdeen South

  120,583

  285,384

  Airdrie

  288,826

  680,841

  Arbroath

  64,152

  150,481

  Ayr

  314,942

  742,833

  Bellshill

  212,846

  502,285

  Bathgate

  225,938

  534,854

  Campbeltown

  15,916

  37,378

  Clydebank

  211,095

  496,800

  Coatbridge

  212,523

  500,040

  Cowdenbeath

  57,904

  138,172

  Cumbernauld

  208,497

  493,285

  Dumbarton

  204,769

  483,231

  Dumfries

  93,110

  219,563

  Dundee East

  187,158

  444,827

  Dundee West

  152,386

  358,252

  Dunfermline

  94,310

  223,536

  East Kilbride

  123,682

  292,085

  Edinburgh City

  221,992

  531,168

  Edinburgh East

  203,829

  479,643

  Edinburgh North

  176,386

  418,697

  Edinburgh South

  185,364

  438,095

  Edinburgh West

  189,633

  448,939

  Elgin

  70,166

  164,481

  Falkirk

  266,850

  628,389

  Fort William

  32,385

  76,606

  Galashiels

  67,829

  156,770

  Glasgow Anniesland

  292,175

  686,574

  Glasgow Bridgeton

  193,539

  456,146

  Glasgow City

  260,770

  615,137

  Glasgow Craighton

  371,601

  871,348

  Glasgow Cranstonhill

  40,153

  95,101

  Glasgow Laurieston

  379,954

  895,959

  Glasgow Maryhill

  324,242

  764,663

  Glasgow Parkhead

  406,292

  954,260

  Glasgow Partick

  173,220

  409,844

  Glasgow Provan

  270,577

  643,194

  Glasgow Rutherglen

  464,887

  1,095,068

  765

  Grants budget

  Loans budget

  £

  £

  Glasgow South Side

  381,691

  901,200

  Glasgow Springburn

  395,717

  932,252

  Greenock

  288,662

  678,882

  Hamilton

  480,658

  1,132,207

  Inverness

  134,166

  320,284

  Irvine

  328,898

  779,326

  Johnstone

  141,992

  336,032

  Kilmarnock

  173,515

  407,887

  Kirkcaldy

  174,478

  411,697

  Lerwick

  9,583

  22,101

  Leven

  63,093

  148,678

  Motherwell

  288,079

  679,608

  Oban

  21,139

  49,859

  Paisley

  351,045

  828,312

  Perth

  82,742

  194,062

  Peterhead

  56,628

  132,508

  Port Glasgow

  177,865

  419,713

  Stirling

  161,863

  383,415

  Stornoway

  31,632

  71,384

  Stranraer

  37,457

  88,531

  Wick

  37,224

  88,072

  Regional Total

  11,328,849

  26,726,872

  Wales and South Western Region

  Grants Budget

  Loans Budget

  £

  £

  Aberdare

  117,197

  275,645

  Abertillery

  50,641

  119,140

  Aberystwyth

  39,177

  93,385

  Ammanford (Group)

  34,778

  81,157

  Anglesey

  75,564

  178,577

  Bargoed

  96,515

  227,602

  Barnstaple

  72,262

  167,689

  Barry

  81,593

  192,302

  Bath

  82,299

  190,490

  Blackwood

  57,198

  134,412

  Bournemouth

  119,947

  275,517

  Bridgend

  109,586

  257,942

  Bridgwater

  53,673

  124,208

  Bristol Central

  111,157

  264,522

  Bristol East

  127,674

  294,694

  Bristol Horfield

  70,147

  163,315

  Bristol South

  165,248

  387,447

  Bristol West

  53,453

  123,971

  Caernarfon

  54,447

  128,371

  Caerphilly

  140,479

  330,381

  Cardiff Central

  125,774

  295,462

  Cardiff East

  222,410

  527,385

  Cardiff West

  159,245

  375,336

  Carmarthen

  32,068

  75,425

  Cheltenham

  80,905

  187,987

  Chippenham

  31,537

  71,182

  Colwyn Bay

  72,718

  167,426

  Cwmbran (Group)

  139,281

  327,430

  Devonport

  144,224

  338,677

  Ebbw Vale (Group)

  86,850

  202,441

  Exeter

  184,510

  427,754

  Gloucester

  159,562

  374,376

  Haverfordwest

  76,901

  182,001

  Launceston

  36,494

  83,778

  Llanelli

  100,610

  233,417

  Merthyr Tydfil

  110,153

  258,095

  Morriston

  132,632

  311,339

  Neath

  66,025

  153,854

  Newport (Gwent)

  277,682

  654,525

  Newtown (Group)

  40,825

  95,665

  Pembroke Dock

  49,832

  118,380

  Penzance

  66,667

  155,651

  Plymouth

  171,097

  402,337

  Pontypridd

  95,829

  225,699

  Poole

  98,595

  225,616

  766

  Grants Budget

  Loans Budget

  £

  £

  Porth

  54,991

  128,661

  Porthmadog/Dolgellau

  33,013

  76,957

  Port Talbot

  73,349

  171,339

  Rhondda West

  96,644

  226,921

  Rhyl

  122,755

  287,363

  St. Austell

  81,926

  193,435

  Salisbury

  49,875

  114,881

  Stroud

  46,330

  104,416

  Swansea

  247,674

  581,965

  Swindon

  98,404

  232,025

  Taunton

  81,473

  188,053

  Torbay

  172,395

  396,230

  Trowbridge

  35,511

  81,648

  Truro

  100,896

  236,533

  Weston-Super-Mare

  58,299

  133,884

  Weymouth

  54,109

  123,297

  Wrexham (Group)

  187,801

  440,645

  Yeovil

  42,694

  97,725

  Regional Total

  6,113,603

  14,297,979

  London (North) Region

  Grants budget

  Loans budget

  £

  £

  Acton

  121,102

  288,221

  Aylesbury

  57,972

  131,876

  Banbury

  37,305

  86,211

  Barking

  141,041

  324,060

  Barnet

  43,185

  98,387

  Basildon

  229,370

  534,082

  Bedford

  108,308

  250,546

  Braintree

  58,806

  132,715

  Bury St. Edmunds

  65,889

  149,884

  Cambridge

  111,346

  257,259

  Canning Town

  121,895

  286,661

  Chelmsford

  58,701

  134,410

  Clacton

  48,309

  110,157

  Colchester

  76,471

  177,637

  Cricklewood

  108,399

  259,916

  Diss

  15,402

  33,758

  Ealing

  113,489

  265,166

  Edgware

  71,329

  164,154

  Edmonton

  97,956

  223,480

  Euston

  108,899

  260,425

  Finsbury Park

  221,419

  531,819

  Grays

  100,781

  236,225

  Great Yarmouth

  90,484

  212,951

  Hackney

  292,693

  696,055

  Harlesden

  195,419

  464,020

  Harlow

  88,631

  206,559

  Harrow

  85,571

  196,522

  Hemel Hempstead

  52,767

  122,409

  Hendon

  101,423

  237,646

  Hertford

  48,508

  108,799

  Highgate

  166,045

  398,523

  High Wycombe

  72,202

  166,392

  Hoxton

  169,167

  400,152

  Ilford

  170,167

  396,059

  Ipswich

  112,537

  256,944

  Kings Lynn

  105,468

  240,979

  Leytonstone

  145,316

  342,936

  Lowestoft

  80,924

  189,382

  Luton

  145,705

  345,813

  Milton Keynes

  124,555

  295,994

  Neasden

  178,624

  423,135

  Norwich Chantry

  125,622

  288,963

  Norwich Mountergate

  200,324

  467,418

  Notting Hill

  101,960

  242,597

  Oxford

  189,885

  443,438

  Paddington

  166,919

  396,585

  Peterborough

  281,325

  662,310

  Plaistow

  161,562

  379,156

  767

  Grants budget

  Loans budget

  £

  £

  Poplar

  155,965

  369,437

  Romford

  93,310

  212,988

  St. Albans

  51,842

  118,851

  Shoreditch

  152,093

  358,754

  Southend

  117,864

  270,173

  Southall

  92,969

  216,745

  Stepney

  81,965

  193,956

  Stevenage

  86,766

  199,706

  Stoke Newington

  136,188

  323,962

  Thames North

  6,651

  16,843

  Tottenham

  190,547

  450,724

  Uxbridge

  52,900

  119,993

  Walthamstow

  113,533

  263,042

  Watford

  51,343

  116,487

  Woodgrange Park

  264,083

  625,103

  Wood Green

  86,626

  205,699

  Regional total

  7,505,820

  17,581,245

  London (South) Region

  Grants budget

  Loans budget

  (£)

  (£)

  Aldershot

  72,138

  167,031

  Andover

  27,663

  63,397

  Ashford

  44,118

  102,425

  Balham

  181,897

  430,857

  Basingstoke

  34,931

  80,012

  Battersea

  189,529

  449,418

  Bexley

  104,823

  243,715

  Bloomsbury

  118,532

  281,621

  Bognor Regis

  47,680

  106,745

  Bracknell

  44,518

  102,574

  Brighton

  152,681

  356,539

  Brixton

  169,094

  404,941

  Bromley

  67,726

  155,665

  Camberwell

  186,487

  442,473

  Canterbury

  50,942

  116,818

  Chatham

  112,917

  269,146

  Chelsea

  143,712

  342,291

  Chichester

  27,514

  61,375

  Crawley

  53,204

  121,219

  Croydon

  148,225

  350,139

  Crystal Palace

  178,572

  422,185

  Dartford

  43,433

  100,662

  Dover

  38,938

  89,476

  Eastbourne

  75,895

  170,230

  Eltham

  32,230

  74,793

  Epsom

  23,994

  53,215

  Fareham

  82,131

  192,872

  Folkestone

  52,067

  121,164

  Gravesend

  45,878

  107,634

  Greenwich Park

  226,116

  539,810

  Guildford

  52,246

  117,604

  Hastings

  94,818

  215,107

  Havant

  90,498

  213,275

  Hither Green

  56,949

  132,412

  Hounslow

  162,483

  378,400

  Hove

  74,424

  168,948

  Isle of Wight

  92,647

  215,319

  Kennington Park

  158,672

  377,078

  Kensington

  82,270

  197,791

  Kingston

  64,878

  149,762

  Lewes

  45,913

  102,765

  Lewisham

  257,003

  607,205

  Maidstone

  65,646

  152,539

  Mitcham

  53,176

  119,700

  Newbury

  42,614

  98,077

  New Forest

  62,684

  144,378

  Orpington

  37,846

  86,420

  Oval

  166,030

  400,572

  Peckham

  145,406

  343,582

  Portsmouth North

  67,720

  161,847

  768

  Grants budget

  Loans budget

  (£)

  (£)

  Portsmouth South

  60,871

  145,478

  Reading

  168,857

  397,123

  Redhill

  44,214

  98,703

  Rochester

  49,396

  116,976

  Sittingbourne

  72,546

  169,731

  Slough

  92,957

  216,757

  Southampton

  202,403

  478,883

  Southwark

  202,543

  476,775

  Streatham

  159,823

  378,345

  Surbiton

  27,887

  63,279

  Sutton

  33,289

  75,355

  Thames South

  10,289

  26,107

  Thanet

  107,002

  247,915

  Tunbridge Wells

  49,499

  109,682

  Twickenham

  34,407

  77,158

  Wandsworth

  91,654

  215,295

  Westminster

  72,446

  169,668

  Wimbledon

  72,651

  169,497

  Winchester

  40,547

  92,850

  Woking

  66,499

  150,424

  Woolwich

  318,954

  754,407

  Worthing

  67,597

  150,277

  Regional Total

  6,697,838

  15,683,907

  North Western Region

  Grants budget

  Loans budget

  £

  £

  Accrington

  85,886

  199,387

  Ashton-under-Lyne

  108,485

  253,035

  Barrow in Furness

  64,234

  148,393

  Birkenhead North

  263,077

  621,681

  Birkenhead South

  123,136

  291,034

  Blackburn

  146,823

  346,212

  Bolton

  253,077

  592,998

  Bootle

  222,411

  525,821

  Burnley

  165,095

  385,252

  Bury

  155,173

  360,162

  Buxton

  10,426

  23,533

  Carlisle

  73,671

  173,657

  Chester

  96,105

  228,840

  Crewe

  100,198

  232,299

  Crosby

  167,536

  394,861

  Ellesmere Port

  93,623

  223,289

  Failsworth

  174,953

  409,116

  Farnworth

  89,398

  207,926

  Fylde North

  120,047

  280,108

  Fylde South

  60,757

  140,146

  Huyton

  275,382

  651,000

  Hyde

  140,025

  327,677

  Kendal

  14,218

  32,215

  Kirkby

  289,314

  687,182

  Lancaster

  142,738

  336,407

  Leigh

  112,065

  263,290

  Liverpool Belle Vale

  164,338

  388,441

  Liverpool Breckfield

  269,344

  636,501

  Liverpool City

  166,981

  394,233

  Liverpool Edge Hill

  179,261

  426,409

  Liverpool Garston

  138,674

  327,373

  Liverpool Norris Green

  124,393

  294,272

  Liverpool Toxteth

  346,814

  822,695

  Liverpool West Derby

  150,053

  355,108

  Macclesfield

  38,186

  88,922

  Manchester Central

  84,502

  202,008

  Manchester Cheetham

  160,122

  377,651

  Manchester Chorlton

  148,534

  353,731

  Manchester Longsight

  195,163

  461,460

  Manchester Openshaw

  141,664

  330,716

  Manchester Rusholme

  241,437

  572,071

  Manchester Wythenshawe

  192,335

  449,632

  Middleton

  103,517

  243,491

  Northwich

  103,042

  243,534

  Oldham

  178,907

  418,274

  Penrith

  10,521

  23,942

  769

  North Western Region

  Grants budget

  Loans budget

  £

  £

  Preston North

  127,692

  301,291

  Preston South

  98,090

  230,593

  Rochdale

  139,685

  328,420

  Rossendale

  51,815

  119,459

  St. Helens

  240,016

  568,334

  Sale

  131,364

  307,104

  Salford North

  159,064

  371,699

  Salford South

  101,790

  239,552

  Skelmersdale

  163,877

  389,153

  Southport

  51,115

  116,512

  Stockport North

  143,022

  334,754

  Stockport South

  138,699

  324,577

  Wallasey

  178,834

  421,399

  Warrington

  187,134

  442,915

  Whitehaven

  43,546

  102,207

  Widnes

  286,040

  677,603

  Wigan

  225,928

  533,689

  Wilmslow

  24,675

  57,262

  Workington

  65,658

  153,686

  Regional total

  9,243,683

  21,766,193

  North Eastern Region

  Grants budget

  Loans budget

  £

  £

  Ashington

  92,016

  216,319

  Barnsley East

  263,378

  622,401

  Barnsley West

  154,341

  362,902

  Berwick-on-Tweed

  11,429

  25,599

  Bishop Auckland

  166,522

  389,184

  Blyth

  89,216

  209,217

  Bradford East

  186,133

  439,459

  Bradford South

  168,331

  396,767

  Bradford West

  190,383

  447,426

  Bridlington

  46,853

  107,758

  Castleford

  79,579

  187,435

  Chester-le-Street

  85,166

  200,920

  Darlington

  195,327

  458,994

  Dewsbury

  120,167

  280,774

  Doncaster East

  144,479

  342,852

  Doncaster West

  229,217

  544,005

  Durham

  65,682

  154,104

  Eston

  115,478

  274,286

  Gateshead

  245,740

  573,344

  Goole

  48,366

  113,307

  Grimsby

  223,099

  525,411

  Halifax

  193,893

  451,068

  Harrogate

  65,621

  150,699

  Hartlepool

  137,309

  324,471

  Hemsworth

  63,930

  151,202

  Hexham

  21,368

  48,975

  Houghton le Spring

  67,240

  158,631

  Huddersfield

  152,595

  358,432

  Hull East

  281,143

  661,746

  Hull West

  231,052

  542,546

  Jarrow

  142,140

  332,695

  Keighley

  81,852

  188,214

  Leeds East

  248,808

  583,349

  Leeds North

  303,814

  715,148

  Leeds North West

  148,484

  348,905

  Leeds South

  102,980

  239,663

  Leeds West

  141,298

  327,704

  Middlesbrough

  369,076

  875,866

  Newcastle St. James

  207,326

  488,185

  Newcastle East

  178,137

  417,973

  Newcastle West

  173,364

  408,836

  Northallerton

  34,467

  80,919

  North Shields

  144,857

  337,813

  Peterlee

  82,730

  194,254

  Pontefract

  78,851

  186,060

  Redcar

  122,309

  289,713

  Rotherham North

  69,479

  164,477

  770

  Grants budget

  Loans budget

  £

  £

  Rotherham South

  224,521

  531,727

  Scarborough

  67,202

  155,860

  Scunthorpe

  155,633

  367,527

  Seaham

  31,603

  73,912

  Sheffield North East

  425,798

  999,133

  Sheffield North West

  314,504

  741,002

  Sheffield South East

  201,597

  470,613

  Sheffield South West

  273,698

  646,101

  Skipton

  13,805

  31,133

  South Shields

  182,571

  427,696

  Stanley

  128,143

  301,674

  Stockton

  266,774

  633,039

  Sunderland North

  356,408

  842,253

  Sunderland South

  219,537

  517,908

  Wakefield

  137,333

  321,751

  Wallsend

  115,907

  270,518

  Wath-on-Dearne

  143,346

  339,241

  York

  122,469

  286,852

  Regional total

  10,145,879

  23,857,950

  Midlands Region

  Grants budget

  Loans budget

  £

  £

  Birmingham Bradford

  137,231

  326,569

  Birmingham Edgbaston

  252,724

  596,587

  Birmingham Erdington

  237,874

  561,325

  Birmingham Handsworth

  328,132

  784,200

  Birmingham Ladywood

  194,586

  461,609

  Birmingham Northfield

  218,514

  515,618

  Birmingham Perry Barr

  162,426

  380,387

  Birmingham Ravenhurst

  117,890

  282,090

  Birmingham South Yardley

  218,255

  514,772

  Birmingham Sparkhill

  89,736

  214,121

  Birmingham Washwood Heath

  203,698

  478,941

  Boston

  50,893

  116,390

  Burton on Trent

  49,051

  115,181

  Cannock

  84,347

  201,306

  Chesterfield

  160,694

  377,931

  Corby

  77,232

  182,945

  Coventry East

  301,709

  716,314

  Coventry West

  201,370

  474,844

  Derby Becket Street

  89,412

  210,734

  Derby London Road

  132,875

  312,438

  Derby Victoria Street

  56,898

  130,695

  Dudley North

  192,773

  450,771

  Dudley South

  89,131

  207,470

  Grantham

  50,702

  117,260

  Hereford

  87,968

  204,672

  Ilkeston

  84,490

  197,631

  Kidderminster

  102,510

  241,580

  Leamington

  82,908

  191,463

  Leicester Burleys Way

  100,549

  234,189

  Leicester Lower Hill

  153,531

  358,745

  Leicester Norton Street

  179,752

  422,836

  Leicester Yeoman Street

  256,424

  599,448

  Lichfield

  134,613

  319,481

  Lincoln Newland

  137,804

  323,256

  Lincoln Orchard Street

  154,702

  362,204

  Loughborough

  75,038

  173,555

  Mansfield

  154,522

  364,522

  Newcastle (Staffs)

  103,432

  241,326

  Northampton

  149,281

  346,992

  Nottingham Castle Gate

  136,689

  322,966

  Nottingham David Lane

  155,039

  367,562

  Nottingham Shakespeare

  196,780

  462,468

  Nottingham Station

  151,705

  356,924

  Nuneaton

  113,186

  266,523

  Redditch

  75,794

  178,813

  Rugby

  48,847

  114,381

  Shewsbury

  123,265

  287,762

  Skegness

  37,354

  87,657

  771

  Grants budget

  Loans budget

  £

  £

  Smethwick

  214,556

  503,552

  Stafford

  54,097

  126,487

  Stoke North

  170,561

  395,567

  Stoke South

  99,583

  231,637

  Sutton-In-Ashfield

  75,927

  177,166

  Telford

  188,018

  445,166

  Wellingborough

  130,754

  300,869

  Walsall East

  137,782

  324,641

  Walsall West

  190,173

  449,284

  West Bromwich

  243,961

  573,205

  Wolverhampton North

  299,583

  708,434

  Wolverhampton South

  247,631

  583,906

  Worcester

  118,458

  274,940

  Worksop

  98,902

  233,547

  Regional Total

  8,964,325

  21,085,851

  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the number of the representations received from Scotland about his draft guidelines for the social fund.

  Mr. Portillo
  Thirteen organisations based in Scotland have commented on the draft social fund manual.

  Scientists and Clinical Psychologists
  Mr. Battle
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the 1987 clinical psychologists pay claim.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will bring forward proposals to improve the pay of hospital scientists.

  Mr. Newton
  The pay of scientists and clinical psychologists is a matter for the Whitley Council. I understand that a joint meeting has been arranged for 11 November.

  Disablement Services Authority
  Mr. Chris Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many of the members of the Disablement Services Authority have any form of disability; and what steps he is taking to arrange for disabled people to be more widely represented on the authority.

  Mr. Scott
  One member of the Disablement Services Authority is a double amputee and another is a wheelchair user. We have no plans for changing the present membership of the authority.

  Birth Statistics
  Mr. Cummings
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will indicate the number of live births and stillbirths within Easington district during the year 1986–87.

  Mrs. Currie
  During the 1986–87 financial year (from April 1986 to March 1987) there were 1,315 live births and five stillbirths to women resident in the Easington district of County Durham.

  Storm Damage
  Mr. Gale
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to receive a full assessment of
  772
  recent storm damage to National Health Service property; what steps he intends to take to ensure that the cost of repairs to National Health Service property in the Canterbury and Thanet health authority district does not detract from funds available for patient care; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The regional health authorities concerned have been asked to provide information, including the estimated cost of making good the damage caused to their property on 15/16 October. We expect to receive a detailed assessment shortly, and will consider the position in the light of that assessment.

  Research Specialists
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the total number of operational research specialists in his Department. for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Portillo
  The number of operational research scientists employed in the Department for each year since 1979 is:

  Operational research scientists

  Date (1 April)

  Number

  1979

  29

  1980

  50

  1981

  27

  1982

  23

  1983

  22

  1984

  19

  1985

  18

  1986

  20

  1987

  20

  19871 2

  19

  1 Latest available figure.

  2 1 October.

  St. Paul's Eye Hospital, Liverpool
  Mr. Alton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many inter-ocular lens operations will take place at Liverpool's St. Paul's eye hospital in the remainder of the financial year 1987–88; and how many have taken place in the last six months.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that the information requested is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to ask the chairman of the Liverpool health authority for the information.

  Royal Liverpool Hospital (Funding)
  Mr. Alton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on funding for the royal Liverpool hospital.

  Mrs. Currie
  As responsibility for the allocation of resources to the royal Liverpool hospital lies with Liverpool health authority, the hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman.

  Maternity Grant
  Mr. Fraser
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will review the level of the £80 maternity grant from the social fund.

  Mr. Scott
  As my right hon. Friend announced to the House on 27 October the social fund maternity payment will be increased to £85 as from next April.

  Sex Abuse Allegations (Leeds)
  Mr. Bell
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many children were taken into care in Leeds for each of the years 1984, 1985 and 1986 as a result of a diagnosis of alleged sex abuse.

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

  Radiotherapy Levels
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when his policy division expects to complete its review of the policy of centralising radio therapy levels; if the review will be published; and if the division has invited the submission of evidence.

  Mr. Newton
  The Department's internal review of its guidance to health authorities on the organisation of radiotherapy services is nearing completion. An announcement will be made as soon as conclusions have been reached.

  Disabled Persons (Services, Representation and Consultation) Act 1986
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when Her Majesty's Government intend to implement sections 5 and 6 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Representation and Consultation) Act 1986.

  Mr. Scott
  Following the successful outcome of discussions with the local authority associations, I am pleased to be able to announce that sections 5 and 6 of the Act are to be implemented with effect from 1 February 1988. That date has been selected to give local authorities time to make the necessary administrative arrangements. The next step will be to consult the associations and the consortium of voluntary organisations who have been monitoring the implementation of the Act on draft guidance to local authorities on these two sections. This will be done as soon as possible.

  The first disabled school leavers to receive statutory assessment by local authority social services departments under the terms of section 5 will mainly be those reaching the statutory school leaving age in 1990. However, I hope that local authorities will be able to apply the new arrangements on a non-statutory basis to as many as possible disabled young people who leave school in 1989.

  The additional costs arising from sections 5 and 6 in 1988–89, mainly in relation to the identification and assessment of disabled school leavers, are estimated at £5 million. The local authority associations have accepted that this is covered in the proposed personal social services provision for that year. It has also been agreed that the best estimate of additional service costs arising from assessments made under section 5 is £14 million in 1989–90 and £20 million in subsequent years. These figures will be taken into account in the public expenditure discussions for the appropriate year.

  There will be continuing discussions with the local authority associations on the costs of other outstanding sections of the Act.

  Heating Additions
  Mr. Cousins
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many supplementary benefit claimants on
  774
  the long-term rate of benefit were receiving heating additions at (a) the higher and (b) the lower rate on 30 September 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987; what percentages of the total numbers of claimants on the long-term rate were receiving each type of addition on that date; and what were these figures and percentages for each office of his Department within Newcastle upon Tyne;

  (2) how many supplementary benefit claimants were receiving heating additions at (a) the higher and (b) the lower rate on 30 September 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987; what percentages of the total numbers of supplementary benefit claimants were receiving each type of addition on that date; and if he will give these figures and percentages for each office of his Department within Newcastle upon Tyne.

  Mr. Portillo
  Information from which the number and percentage of supplementary benefit claimants in Great Britain receiving heating additions can be extracted is available only for December 1984 and February 1986. I will let the hon. Member have a reply giving these figures as soon as possible. Equivalent figures for each local office in Newcastle upon Tyne are not available.

  Benefits
  Mr. Frank Field
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the number of supplementary benefit recipients aged under 25 years in Great Britain in 1986 and in the earliest year for which figures are available in the following household categories (a) lone person householders, (b) living as members of another person's household and (c) paying an inclusive charge for full board and lodgings.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 26 October 1987]: The information is as follows:

  November 1979

  February 1986

  (thousands)

  (thousands)

  (a) Lone person householders1

  20

  129

  (b) Members of another person's household

  222

  647

  (c) Boarders2

  5

  52

  1 Excludes joint householders, and householders with dependants, non-dependants, boarders or sub-tenants.

  2 Excludes claimants in hostels or common lodging houses but includes cases where only part board is supplied (eg bed and breakfast only).

  Source: Annual statistical enquiries.

  Abortion
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his reply of 26 October, Official Report, column 175, how many of the 69.7 per cent. of abortions after 18 weeks which were performed upon women with no previous children were performed upon women who had had a previous abortion.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 2 November 1987]: of the 5,770 notified abortions at 18 weeks and over gestation performed in England and Wales in 1986 on women with no previous children, 722 (12.5 per cent.) were performed on women who had had a previous abortion.

  Birmingham Health Authority
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will set out figures for revenue spending for the Birmingham health authorities in 1982–83 at 1985–86 values together with the figure for 1985–86; and what account these figures take of demographic changes in addition to inflation.

  Mrs. Currie
  [pursuant to her reply, 21 October 1987 c. 806]: Allocations to the five Birmingham district health authorities are a matter for the West Midlands regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to write to the chairman of the RHA seeking information about the basis of those allocations.

  Gross expenditure1 for the five Birmingham Health Authorities

  £000s

  1982–83

  Percentage change 1982–83 to 1985–86

  1986–87

  Percentage change 1982–83 to 1986–87

  Cash

  At 1985–86 prices2

  1985–86 cash

  Cash

  Real terms

  Cash

  At 1985–86 prices2

  Cash

  Real terms

  1987–88 initial cash allocation4

  Central Birmingham

  63,388

  73,403

  77,172

  21·7

  5·1

  85,035

  82,543

  34·1

  12·5

  77,832

  East Birmingham

  29,071

  33,664

  36,015

  23·

  7·0

  38,875

  37,736

  33·7

  12·1

  33,403

  North Birmingham

  30,574

  35,405

  35,914

  17·5

  1·4

  332,725

  331,766

  —

  —

  35,922

  South Birmingham

  51,720

  59,892

  57,549

  11·3

  -3·9

  62,519

  60,687

  20·9

  1·3

  57,450

  West Birmingham

  49,878

  57,759

  58,768

  17·8

  1·7

  62,339

  60,512

  25·0

  4·8

  56,680

  Total

  224,631

  260,123

  265,418

  18·2

  2·9

  281,488

  273,239

  —

  —

  261,287

  1 Based on health authorities' summarised accounts; figures for 1986–87 are provisional.

  2 Revalued using the Gross Domestic Product deflator.

  3 The 1986–87 figures for North Birmingham Health Authority are not comparable with those for earlier years as a number of hospitals managed by that Authority transferred to South East Staffordshire on 1 April 1986.

  4 Initial allocation figures are not comparable with outturn expenditure shown for earlier years.

  Publicity (Departmental Expenditure)
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what was the total spending by his Department on press and public relations in 1986–87; and what is the estimated expenditure for the current year;

  (2) what was the total spending by his Department on television, radio and newspaper advertising and other promotional literature in 1986–87; and what is the estimated expenditure for the current year.

  Mr. Moore
  [pursuant to his reply, 17 July 1987, c.667]: My Department has no section which can be separately identified as public relations. Functions which arc commonly associated with public relations are carried out by the Department's information division.

  Total spending by my Department's information division in 1986–87 was as follows:

  £

  Advertising and promotional literature

  19,200,000

  Professional manpower

  936,000

  Estimates for the 1987–88 year are as follows:

  £

  Advertising and promotional literature

  28,800,000

  Professional manpower

  994,000

  Figures for the total spending by my Department on television, radio and newspaper advertising (but not cinema or poster advertising) and other literature in 1986–87 are as follows:
  776
  The information requested on revenue expenditure is shown in the following table. Provisional expenditure figures for 1986–87 are also shown. Comparable figures for 1987–88 will not be available until after the end of the financial year. The initial 1987–88 revenue allocations which the districts received from the West Midlands regional health authority are given in the table. However these allocation figures are not comparable with the expenditure figures shown for earlier years; in particular, they exclude income generated by the authorities themselves.

  £

  Television

  2,345,000

  Radio

  771,000

  Newspapers

  5,570,000

  Other promotional literature

  8,488,000

  Total

  17,174,000

  Estimates for the 1987–88 year are as follows:

  £

  Television

  7,688,000

  Radio

  1,420,000

  Newspapers

  8,232,000

  Other promotional literature

  6,720,000

  Total

  24,040,000

  Social security spending in the 1986–87 financial year centred on the changes arising from the reform of social security. In addition to the routine amendments to benefit literature, campaigns were mounted to advise potential beneficiaries of changed entitlements to maternity and invalid care allowances and the provision for extra help with heating costs because of the exceptionally cold weather.

  Estimated expenditure for the 1987–88 financial year on advertising and promotional literature includes £11 million to explain and introduce the reform of social security. Approximately half of this figure will be for literature explaining the benefits. The balance will be spent on advertising to bring the changes to the attention of the public.
  777
  The major elements in health publicity spending in 1986–87 and that planned for 1987–88 include: public education campaigns on AIDS, drugs misuse, teenage anti-smoking, breast and cervical cancer and advice for people travelling abroad; together with recruitment campaigns for nurses, other NHS staff groups and blood donors.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Schizophrenia
  Mr. Goodlad
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people with a main diagnosis of schizophrenic psychosis were discharged from mental illness hospitals in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years; and how many of them were taken into local authority residential care in the same year.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is as follows:

  Number

  1986

  981

  1985

  1,120

  1984

  1,096

  1983

  1,037

  1982

  985

  These figures may include patients discharged more than once in the year.

  Information about how many of these people were subsequently admitted into residential care provided by health and social services boards in Northern Ireland is not available.

  Mr. Goodlad
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people discharged from hospital following a main diagnosis of schizophrenic psychosis and subsequently taken by the police under section to hospital have been refused admission in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Needham
  This information is not held centrally and could he obtained only at disproportionate cost from each of the psychiatric units in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Goodlad
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what research projects his Department has funded to test the effectiveness of community care for people suffering from schizophrenic psychosis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  None.

  Deaf/Blind People
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many deaf/blind and blind/deaf people there are in Northern Ireland; what advice his Department is giving to area health and social services boards as to how the needs of these groups can be met; what provision is being made by boards; what efforts are being made to provide employment for young deaf/blind people who are capable of earning a living; what provision exists for specialist training of social workers to meet the needs of deaf/blind people in Northern Ireland; what is the incidence of mental handicap among the deaf/blind; what additional needs have been identified as requiring further help; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  In the absense of an accepted definition of the terms blind/deaf and deaf/blind, information about 778
  these groups and on the incidence of mental handicap among them is not available. In an attempt to provide a workable interpretation the Royal National Institute for the Blind has established a working party which is currently considering this complex issue.

  In Northern Ireland, the individual needs of visually handicapped and hearing-impaired clients are met by the general range of statutory and voluntary services including the provision of home helps, aids and adaptations. and day centre and workshop activities. In the Eastern board area, specialist rehabilitation services are provided at Beechbank house and Helen Keller house. However, it is recognised that services specifically for the deaf and blind reqire improvement. In its regional strategy for the period 1987–92. the Department has advised boards that it will expect them to effect improvements either through the creation of specialist posts or through in-service training designed to ensure that existing staff, including social workers, are made more aware and capable of meeting the needs of blind and deaf people.

  With regard to employment opportunities, each of the Province's 28 jobmarkets has a careers officer who has particular responsibility for guiding and advising disabled young persons on career choice and on training in the youth training programme. The programme provides financial resources for young disabled people to meet the cost of, for example specialist equipment, and for deaf and blind trainees in particular, assistance is available through the Education Support Service which has three full-time teachers specialising in their needs.

  Roads
  Mr. McGrady
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the level of funding allocated to the major roads programme in the last 10 years in the areas covered by the following divisional offices: Craigavon and Downpatrick; and if he will give a geographic breakdown of funding in (i) Down district (all) (ii) Newry and Mourne district (in County Down) and (iii) Banbridge (in the electoral wards of Bannside and Katesbridge, Dromore South, Dromore North, Quilly, Garron and Croob).

  Mr. Needham
  Expenditure was as follows:

  £ million

  Craigavon Division

  14·8

  Downpatrick Division

  22·6

  Down District

  0·6

  Newry and Mourne District (in County Down)

  5·8

  Bambridge District (electoral wards of Bannside, Katcsbridge, Dromorc South, Dromore North, Quilly, Garran and Croob

  1·0

  Housing
  Mr. McGrady
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of contractors' work is inspected after improvement work is carried out to Housing Executive dwellings in the areas covered by the following district offices: Downpatrick, Kilkeel, Banbridge, Newry district 1 and Newry district 2; and if he is satisfied that this process results in value for money and a proper standard of workmanship.

  Mr. Needham
  This is a matter for the chairman of the Housing Executive who has advised me that all dwellings in improvement schemes are inspected on completion of
  779
  the works and at the end of a defects liability period. The executive is satisfied that its inspection arrangements result in value for money and a proper standard of workmanship.

  Mr. McGrady
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current policy on the improvement of labourers' cottages in Northern Ireland; and how many unimproved labourers' cottages are part of Housing Executive stock in the areas covered by the following district offices: Downpatrick, Kilkeel, Banbridge, Newry district 1 and Newry district 2.

  Mr. Needham
  This is a matter for the chairman of the Housing Executive who has informed me that current policy is to carry out full improvements to labourers' cottages where possible subject to normal value for money considerations. The executive is aware of only one cottage in the districts in question on which no improvements have been carried out.

  Mr. McGrady
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many new houses the Housing Executive will construct in the financial year 1987–88 in the areas covered by the following district offices: Downpatrick, Kilkeel, Banbridge, Newry district 1 and Newry district 2.

  Mr. Needham
  This is primarily a matter for the Housing Executive. I understand from the chairman that in the 1987–88 financial year the Housing Executive expects to complete or start dwellings in the areas covered by these district offices as follows:

  District Office

  Planned completions

  Planned starts

  Downpatrick

  31

  31

  Kilkeel

  —

  11

  Banbridge

  22

  44

  Newry No. 1

  8

  31

  Newry No. 2

  9

  33

  Mr. McCrady
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many handicapped adaptations applications have been received in the areas covered by the following offices during 1987–88: Downpatrick, Kilkeel, Banbridge, Newry district 1 and Newry district 2; for what types of adaptations applications are made; how many of these have been completed; what agencies are involved in the process and how long it takes to process a handicapped adaptation.

  Mr. Needham
  This a matter for the chairman of the Housing Executive, who has informed me that the number of handicapped adaptations applications received in respect of both private and public dwellings in the areas referred to during the period April 1987 to September 1987 was as follows:—

  Number

  Downpatrick

  52

  Banbridge

  60

  Kilkeel

  233

  Newry 1

  Newry 2

  Separate figures for applications received in Kilkeel and the two Newry district offices, and the numbers of these applications which have been completed are not readily available but I will ask the chairman of the Executive to write to the hon. Member on both these points.
  780
  The type of adaptations requested range from minor works such as provision of handrails or the fitting of locks and handles at convenient levels, to major renovations involving provision of an extension for kitchen, bathroom or bedroom facilities.

  In dealing with such applications the Housing Executive works closely with the appropriate health and social services board, district council and Northern Ireland Fire Authority.

  The time scale from receipt of an initial request to on-site completion varies considerably according to the complexity of each case. Minor works can he undertaken within a relatively short period. For major works to public sector houses, allowing for consultations, design, statutory approvals and contract period the average would be 1½ to 2 years.

  Disabled People
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what was his response to the Northern Ireland Council on Disability's proposals for equality of opportunity in employment for disabled people; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he has any plans for further consultations with the Northern Ireland Council on Disability regarding equality of employment opportunity for people with disabilities;

  (3) what plans he has for promoting equality of opportunity in employment for people in Northern Ireland with disabilities.

  Mr. Viggers
  Following consideration of all responses, including those received from the Northern Ireland Council on Disability, to the Government's consultative paper on equality of opportunity in employment the council has been advised that disability in Northern Ireland will continue to be addressed in the same way as in the rest of the United Kingdom. Discussions are, however, taking place between council and Government officials to examine how employment and training provision for disabled people can be most effectively administered and to consider proposals by the NICD that an equality of opportunity unit within its own organisation should be established.

  Capital Grants
  Mr. Mallon
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland why Northern Ireland has incurred a cut in the standard capital grant rate from 20 per cent. to 12·5 per cent; and what is his estimate of the percentage reduction in real terms.

  Mr. Viggers
  The decision to reduce the rate of standard capital grant was taken because this scheme does not provide good value for public money. Due to its automatic nature the scheme is unable to take account of factors such as the relationship between the investment and the creation of jobs or whether the project would have proceeded irrespective of grant assistance. In addition SCG has created a displacement effect whereby the grant aiding of some firms has placed their competitors, who are also dependent on local markets at a disadvantage.

  The grant rate change is expected to result in a reduction in SCG expenditure this year of £1·75 million and £5 million in the next financial year. This represents

  781
  some 1 per cent. and 3 per cent. respectively of the current year's planned expenditure on industrial support and development.

  The Government intend that available funds should be targeted increasingly on the stimulation of new developments, the promotion of competitiveness and the introduction of better design, quality and marketing. It is intended that this change of emphasis should be achieved by greater use of IDB's and LEDU's selective assistance schemes.

  Democracy
  Mr. McNamara
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will list in the Official Report the 20 delegations of councillors which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) saw from the main political parties in Northern Ireland before publishing his discussion paper on elected representatives and the democratic process in Northern Ireland;

  (2) if he will list in relation to the 20 delegations of councillors which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North saw, concerning the discussion paper on elected representatives and the democratic process in Northern Ireland (a) which councils were represented by which parties and (b) which councils were represented by joint delegations composed of representatives of which parties.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 2 November 1987]: I received delegations, at separate or joint meetings, from the following councils and political parties: Antrim (SDLP and UUP); Ards (DUP and UUP); Armagh (DUP, SDLP and UUP); Banbridge (DUP and UUP); Ballymena (DUP and UUP); Belfast (SDLP and UUP); Carrickfergus (DUP and UUP); Craigavon (SDLP); Cookstown (SDLP); Derry (DUP); Down (SDLP); Dungannon (UUP); Fermanagh (DUP and UUP); Larne (DUP and UUP); Limavady (DUP, SDLP and UUP); Lisburn (Alliance and UUP); Magherafelt (DUP); Newtownabbey (DUP and UUP); North Down (Alliance, DUP and UUP); and Strabane (DUP). Councillors from the two unionist parties attended joint meetings, along with a number of Independent Unionists. The other political parties were represented at separate meetings.

  Mr. McNamara
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in relation to the 20 delegations of councillors which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North saw, concerning the discussion paper on elected representatives and the democratic process in Northern Ireland, which of the councils involved had subscribed to the Fair Employment Agency's declaration on fair employment.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 2 November 1987]: Belfast, Derry, Down, Fermanagh, Magherafelt and Newtownabbey councils had signed the Fair Employment Agency's declaration of principle and intent.

  Mr. McNamara
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list, in relation to the 20 delegations of councillors, which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North saw, concerning the discussion paper on elected representatives and the democratic process in Northern
  782
  Ireland, which of the councils represented had limited or refused to conduct their business after the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 2 November 1987]: Of the councils whose members took part in the 20 meetings held, protest action against the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement resulting in some form of disruption of council business was taken by Antrim, Ards, Armagh, Ballymena, Banbridge, Belfast, Carrickfergus, Cookstown, Craigavon, Dungannon, Lame, Limavady, Lisburn, Newtownabbey and North Down councils.

  Mr. McNamara
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information is available to him, in relation to the 20 delegations of councillors which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North saw, concerning the discussion paper on elected representatives and the democratic process in Northern Ireland, as to which of the delegations were mandated by their councils and which by political groups.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 27 October 1987]: None.

  Sheep and Lambs (Sale Restrictions)
  Mr. William Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many sheep and lambs, and in what areas of Northern Ireland, are still under restriction for sale as a result of the nuclear accident at Chernobyl in the USSR.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 2 November 1987]: When restrictions on movement and slaughter of sheep were introduced on 15 September 1987 a survey revealed the presence of approximately 35,000 sheep in the affected areas as follows:

  Number

  Glenwherry, County Antrim

  8,500

  Glenshane, County Londonderry

  21,000

  Belraugh, County Londonderry

  5,500

  To date approximately 4,000 sheep have been monitored and released from restriction.

  Storm Damage
  Mr. William Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has to the number of dwellings which were flooded in each council area in Northern Ireland due to the exceptional rainfall on 21 October.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 2 November 1987]: Flooding of dwellings was confined mainly to the west and north-west of the Province. Details of reported major incidents of flooding are as follows:

  District

  Dwellings

  Strabane

  300

  Omagh

  84

  Fermanagh

  52

  Craigavon

  35

  Coleraine

  28

  Banbridge

  24

  Armagh

  16

  Limavady

  13

  Precise numbers of flooded dwellings in other council districts are not known but are probably in single figures.
  783
  Mr. William Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects the repairs to the banking system on the River Roe which are necessary as a result of flood damage on 21 October to be completed; and what is his estimate of the cost.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 3 November 1987]: Repairs to the flood bank on the River Roe have already started. Progress will depend on weather conditions and the work is likely to take up to six months to complete. Its estimated costs is £120,000.

  Home Help Service
  Mr. Mallon
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the inflation-adjusted cost of the home help care service in the constituency of Newry and Armagh during 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986 respectively.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer, 2 November 1987]: The costs of the home help service provided in the Armagh/ Dungannon and Newry/Mourne units of management are as follows:

  £1

  1983–84

  2,799,314

  1984–85

  2,737,926

  1985–86

  2,913,641

  1986–87

  22,856,046

  1 At 1985–86 prices.

  2 Provisional.

  Mr. Mallon
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number of recipients of home help care in the constituency of Newry and Armagh in 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986 respectively.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 2 November 1987]: The numbers who received home help service in the Newry and Mourne and Armagh and Dungannon units of management were:

  Newry and Mourne

  Armagh and Dungannon

  1983

  1,817

  1,953

  1984

  1,848

  1,772

  1985

  1,958

  1,987

  1986

  1,576

  1,921

  Mr. Mallon
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total number of recipients of home help care in Northern Ireland in 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986 respectively.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 2 November 1987]: The information is as follows:

  28,023, 28,318, 29,602 and 29,897 respectively.

  Mr. Mallon
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will initiate a review of the home help care service in Northern Ireland to establish the cost of the service during 1986 and the savings achieved by the Department of Health and Social Services as a result of the home help care service reducing the number of sick, aged and disabled who would otherwise have needed to be admitted to hospital or residential care during the same period.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 2 November 1987]: No. The Department of Health and Social Services has
  784
  recognised in its regional strategy for 1987–92 that a wide range of domiciliary and other community services is essential in ensuring that people are admitted to long-stay care, whether in hospital or residential accommodation, only where this is essential.

  The Department has also indicated that it intends to test this strategy by means of a programme of evaluation and monitoring, but a review related only to one component of the range of services which comprise community care would not be appropriate.

  Maryfield Secretariat
  Mr. William Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Belfast, South of 2 July, Official Report, column 161, he will bring up to date the costs so far to public funds of the Maryfield secretariat;

  (2) if he will list all the sums of over £1,000 annual cost attributable to expenditure on the Maryfield secretariat

  Mr. Tom King
  [holding answer 3 November 1987]: The cost to United Kingdom public funds of secretariat salaries, to the end of September, was £193,000; that of running expenses £184,000. Records are not kept in such a form as to yield the further breakdown the hon. Gentleman seeks.

  Intergovernmental Council
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give particulars of each of the meetings of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council held since the signing of the Hillsborough agreement.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council has continued to provide a framework for a wide variety of meetings between our two Governments. These include the meetings of the Intergovernmental Conference established by the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985, which was explicitly set up within the framework of the ADC. There have been a number of meetings at all the levels since the conclusion of the agreement, including those of the ADC co-ordinating committee and its cultural and educational working group.

TRANSPORT

  Catalytic Converters
  Mr. Livingstone
  asked the Secretary of State far Transport what account he has taken of recent developments in catalytic converters; and if he will now reconsider the case for fitting these converters to British cars.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We keep in close touch with developments in vehicle technology. We will be tightening our legal emission standards when the relevant European directives have been finally adopted. We expect that catalysts will be needed in the 1990s on a substantial number of new cars registered in Britain.

  Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Colvin
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to increase planning controls on the granting of licences for the operation of goods vehicles.
  785
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The environmental provisions relating to operator licensing were reviewed last year. I announced then that a number of amendments to the legislation would be brought forward when an opportunity arose. There was no recommendation for a closer link between planning and licensing law. When considering an application which involves a new operating centre the licensing authorities are able to take into account any information about planning permission.

  Lean Burn Engines
  Mr. Ingram
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the lean burn engine to be fitted to all new cars sold in Britain.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I cannot predict how widely the lean burn engine will be used in future. It is one of the most attractive options open to manufacturers seeking to comply with tighter emission limits, taking into account factors such as cost, performance, fuel economy and driveability.

  Lead-free Petrol
  Mr. Allen McKay
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set a final date for Britain to have lead-free petrol only on sale.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No. Leaded petrol will be needed for a diminishing number of cars until around the end of the century.

  Farm Vehicles
  Mr. Michael Morris
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what enforcement action is taken to ensure that farmers do not abuse the preferential treatment of farmers' vehicles to undercut boda fide professional road haulage.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Both the police and officials of this Department aim to ensure, by roadside checks and other available means, that vehicles are correctly licensed for the uses to which they are being put. I am not aware of any general difficulty relating to the licensing concessions for farmers' vehicles. Perhaps my hon. Friend could write to me if he has a particular problem in mind.

  Coach Routes (Designation)
  Mr. Adley
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now return to local authorities the duty to designate coach routes in their areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Local authorities retain their powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to prevent public service vehicles from using unsuitable roads. The Transport Act 1985 gave them a further power to prohibit or restrict waiting by local buses.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what reports he has received from the Civil Aviation Authority concerning radar, radio and telephone problems at air traffic control centres in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  These matters fall within the day-to-day management responsibility of the Civil Aviation 786
  Authority and it does not therefore make such reports to my right hon. Friend as a matter of routine. He is informed of major failures in the system. Improved reliability of equipment may sometimes form part of the justification for investment proposals which require his approval.

  Road Humps
  Mr. Adley
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of relevant applications received by his Department, to install road humps, by each local authority in England; how many have been approved; and what steps he is taking to encourage the use of these devices.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We have recently issued a leaflet on speed control humps to local authorities to help them assess where these might be appropriate and to advise them on technical aspects. It is for local authorities to decide where local circumstances make their use desirable. The Department does not approve or monitor individual installations of speed control humps or other local authority road and traffic measures.

  M20 (Hollingbourne to Ashford)
  Mr. Speed
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to let the main contract for the Hollingbourne to Ashford section of the M20 motorway.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Subject to the satisfactory completion of the remaining statutory procedures, we plan to let two contracts in the spring and summer next year for completion at about the same time in late 1990.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles (Noise)
  Mr. Speed
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what research is currently being undertaken by his Department with a view to reducing noise made by heavy goods vehicles with respect to (a) bodies, (b) engines (c) tyres and (d) transmissions.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The quiet heavy vehicle (QH V90) project—a joint Government and industry initiative to research and develop methods of quietening heavy goods vehicles—should be virtually completed during 1988. During this programme a range of noise reduction measures have been examined, but not tyre noise. Trials of improved road surfaces, aimed at meeting a number of criteria including reduced tyre noise, are continuing.

  Shipping Registers (British Dependent Territories)
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether any review of the status of British dependent territory shipping registers has taken place since January 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Proposals on the British dependent territory shipping registers were published in the consultative document "Proposals for Legislation on Ship Registration and Other Matters" issued by my Department in March 1984. The Merchant Shipping Bill, introduced in the other place on 29 October, by my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport carries forward these proposals, modified in the light of comments made on the consultative document and
  787
  of subsequent developments. The White Paper "Merchant Shipping: Legislative Proposals" (Cm. 239) published on 30 October gives further background.

  Research Specialists
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total number of operational research specialists in his Department, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Four currently. The information is not available for previous years.

  Transport Infrastructure Improvements
  Dr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is considering any proposals for making joint applications with other European Community member states for financial assistance from the European Community for transport infrastructure improvements of mutual benefit to both the United Kingdom and the other member states.

  M40 (Progress)
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement regarding progress in completing the M40 motorway.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We are making good progress. Both contracts for the Warwick section are already under construction and all five contracts for the Banbury and Gaydon sections should be under way by mid-1988. A public inquiry is currently in progress into the remaining, Waterstock-Wendlebury, section. Subject to the completion of statutory procedures, we hope to begin work on this section in 1989 and to complete it during 1991.

  Rail Electrification
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what measures are at present being undertaken to extend the length of electrified railway track in England and Wales; and in which British Rail regions.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Work is currently under way on five projects:

  Region

  Bournemouth-Weymouth

  Southern

  North London Line

  Eastern

  East Coast Main Line

  Anglian/

  Eastern/

  Scottish

  Royston-Cambridge

  Anglia

  Watford-St. Albans

  London

  A further 15 projects have been completed since 1979.

  British Rail (Privatisation)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with British Rail on the privatisation of passenger services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  None. The Government's policy towards the railways was set out in the letter on objectives sent to Sir Robert Reid in October 1986.

  Skips
  Mr. Moate
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish statistics showing the number of injuries and accidents which involve skips which are located on public highways.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The presence of skips is not recorded on road accident reports. The information requested is therefore not available.

  Airports (Financial Assistance)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport which airports have received financial assistance from Her Majesty"s Government in each of the last three years; in what form; and what was the value of the assistance in each case.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Following is the information:

  Airport and Year

  Form of assitance

  Value £'000s

  Belfast (Aldergrove)

  1984–85

  Security grant

  604

  1985–86

  Security grant

  655

  Airport development grant

  833

  1988–87

  Security grant

  680

  Birmingham

  1984–85

  Airport development grant (under the terms of the now expired municipalisation agreement)

  3,134

  Liverpool

  1984–85

  Urban programme grants

  n/a

  1985–86

  Urban programme grants

  n/a

  1986–87

  Urban programme grants

  n/a

  St. Mary's (I.of S.)

  1984–1985

  Assistance in respect of losses following I. of S. assumption of airport management from DTI

  25

  1985–86

  60

  Scottish Highlands and Islands

  1984–85

  Assistance in respect of losses at

  3,364

  1985–86

  eight Highlands and Islands

  3,251

  1986–87

  aerodromes

  2,896

  n/a Not readily available.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what financial assistance is available for airports accepting scheduled or non-scheduled traffic from (a) Her Majesty's Government and (b) the European Economic Community; and what criteria are used in determining elegibility for such assistance.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Government financial assistance is not generally available, but some airports might be eligible for consideration under the following specific schemes:

  (a) Urban programme grants. Available for inner city projects within designated areas to tackle problems of unemployment and social need.

  (b) Security grants. Northern Ireland only. Compensation for additional security measures provided at Belfast international (Aldergrove).

  (c) Scottish Development Department assistance to Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd. (a subsidiary of the Civil Aviation Authority) in respect of losses incurred at its eight aerodromes (Benbecula, Inverness, Islay, Kirkwall, Stornoway, Sumburgh, Tiree and Wick).

  789

  (d) European regional development fund. Available to projects in assisted areas designated by the Department of Trade and Industry, or serving an assisted area in such a way as to assist in the regeneration of its economy.

  Airports (Civil Traffic)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whether he will list each airport in the United Kingdom which accepts non-scheduled civil or scheduled civil airline traffic;

  (2) whether he will list each airport in the United Kingdom which accepts scheduled airline traffic.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Under article 71 of the Air Navigation Order 1985, most aircraft involved in scheduled or non-scheduled public transport of passengers in the United Kingdom are required to use an aerodrome licensed by the Civil Aviation Authority, a Government aerodrome, or one owned or managed by the authority. I am sending the hon. Member a list of such aerodromes, marked to show those from which scheduled services operated in October 1987. Copies will be placed in the Library. Information is not readily available to distinguish which aerodromes accept non-scheduled traffic.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will place in the Library the text of the undertaking given by British Rail to Eurotunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  No. The agreement on payments to be made by British Rail and SNCF for use of the Channel tunnel is a commercial matter between the Railways and Eurotunnel.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when, and in what manner, he gave permission to British Rail to guarantee payments to Eurotunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  It was entirely the Railways' decision to agree to make regular minimum payments to Eurotunnel each year once the Channel tunnel has opened in return for entitlement to use 50 per cent. of the tunnel's capacity. The Government were however, kept informed of progress on those negotiations, and were satisfied that British Rail did not go beyond what it considered would be commercially justifiable and that thus there was no question of the treaty or section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act being contravened.
  790
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what conditions have been placed by the international banks on the granting of £5,000 million loans to Eurotunnel; and if in particular they are conditional on the undertaking given by British Rail and the loan facility provided by the European Investment Bank, respectively.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The conditions placed by the international banks on the granting of credit facilities of £5,000,000,000 to Eurotunnel are a matter for the banks themselves.

  Newark Bypass
  Mr. Alexander
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list (a) the tenderers for the Newark bypass whose quotations he has rejected and (b) the tender figures offered by each of them.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The firms, in alphabetical order, were:

  Balfour Beatty Ltd.

  Cementation Construction Ltd.

  Costain Civil Engineering Ltd.

  Fairclough Civil Engineering Ltd.

  Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd.

  John Mowlem & Co. Plc.

  Wimpey Construction UK Ltd.

  It is the Department's policy not publicly to attribute unsuccessful tender prices to the firms that offered them.

  The prices, in ascending order, were:

  £34,977,331·47

  £35,224,724·00

  £35,786,402·79

  £35,817,341·72

  £36,329,677·07

  £36,801,616·86

  £37,449,317·20

  Public Transport (Workers)
  Mr. Morley
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many workers were employed within the public transport industry in (a) 1985 and (b)

  Mr. Major
  I have been asked to reply.

  Numbers in thousands were as follows:

  Mid year 1985

  Mid year 1986

  Public sector transport

  397

  383

  Source: Data underlying "Employment in the public and private sectors, 1980 to 1986" Economic Trends, December 1986.

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

Lord Crickhowell
The Right Honourable Roger Nicholas Edwards, having been created Baron Crickhowell, of Pont Esgob in the Black Mountains and the County of Powys, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Gibson-Watt and the Lord Peyton of Yeovil.

Lord St. John of Fawsley
The Right Honourable Norman Antony Francis St. John-Stevas, having been created Baron St. John of Fawsley, of Preston Capes in the County of Northamptonshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Home of the Hirsel and the Lord Charteris of Amisfield.
The Earl of Harrowby The Earl of Harrowby—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Several Lords Several Lords —Took the Oath.

EC Resources and Spending
2.56 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 steps they propose to take to ensure that no charge shall fall on the Exchequer in respect of any amount by which the European Community's budget for 1988 as established by a qualified majority of members of the Council of Ministers exceeds the Community's own resources as determined unanimously by the Council decision (85/257/EC Euratom) of 7th May 1985 at 1·4 per cent., being the maximum rate applied to the uniform basis for assessing value added tax as defined therein.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, the Government will do their utmost to ensure that the Community does not adopt a budget in excess of the present own resources ceiling unless and until the Council has decided unanimously to raise the ceiling. The Community cannot in any event spend money which it does not have.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and thoroughly endorse those sentiments. However, I should like to ask him whether he is aware that the figures given yesterday
984
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in respect of the British net contribution after all receipts to European funds was some £1,400 million—a very large sum of money indeed and £400 million more than was envisaged in January? Will the Minister offer the utmost resistance to any increase in that contribution, which only goes towards the useless cost of food mountains, wine mountain—lakes—and so on?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that I shall not attempt to scale any wine mountain, but I shall pass on his comments. Of course, we have commitments to the European Community and we shall abide by those commitments. We shall do our utmost to ensure that the rest of the Community does so as well.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, why did the Minister say that the Community cannot spend money that it does not have when it has already done so?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I should like to assure the noble Baroness that in fact the Community can only spend money that it has to spend. But we must ensure that it sets a legally binding budget and that it lives within that budget.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in connection with this problem, which the Minister himself has called serious, can he say whether the Government will inquire into why, so often, the will of the European Parliament seems to be totally ignored and flouted by the Council of Ministers, as it has been in this particular instance? Is he prepared to consider that point and take it on board for discussions with his colleagues?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, clearly, there are accepted procedures for agreeing the budget in Europe. Within them Parliament as well as the Council of Ministers have their allotted roles. It is up to us to ensure that those procedures are adhered to and that the budgets are set legally.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, as the Minister willingly concedes, the common agricultural policy is crucial in the context of what is now being discussed. Is he aware that the Government have given an undertaking that they will make firm proposals on the reform of the CAP? Will he be good enough to tell us the stage which work on that reform has reached and when representation will be made?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, that is an entirely different question. If the noble Lord cares to put down a Question I will see that the information is made available.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is not the common agricultural policy and the money involved there crucial to the whole issue in the Question?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords, it is an integral part of it. But I was asked specifically about the own resources ceiling, which is a very definite and clear part of the issue. I should be only too happy to answer the other question.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this item does not appear anywhere on the agenda for the ministerial council meetings in November? Is he not leaving it a little late; or perhaps the Prime Minister's office should make representations to the Foreign Office for the correct organisation of these meetings?
Lord Young of Graffham: No, my Lords. We have to put this in the right structure. The agreement as regards the financing of the European Community is clear. It must live within its own resources budget and that is predicated on 1·4 per cent. of VAT. If there is any change from that, it is up to the Commission to introduce it.

Radiation in the Environment: Health Risks
3.5 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: 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 action they are taking following confirmation of leukaemia among children at more than double the average rate at Aldermaston and Burghfield and the publication of Sir Richard Doll's report, which states that similar findings at Sellafield make it likely that high childhood cancer rates in such areas are linked to nuclear weapon and reprocessing plants.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, the independent Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment was established in 1985 to advise government on possible health effects of radiation in the environment. It has already produced one report on Sellafield and is expected to report next year on Aldermaston. The Government have commissioned parallel research recommended in the Black Report and are supporting other research.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. He will be aware not only that there have been other reports since the original one by Sir Douglas Black back in 1964 but that these reports have differed from each other. I think he will also agree with me that even people reading the same report have come to quite opposite conclusions as to what the situation really is. Is the noble Lord aware that I am very glad to hear that the Government are pursuing the matter? Does he agree in the meantime that the question of living near nuclear reactors is open to serious doubt, if no more than that?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, knowing his views, I am not surprised that the noble Lord has made a quantum leap in this direction. While the Government are aware that some studies completed recently report a higher than average incidence of
986
leukaemia in young people in areas close to Sellafield and Aldermaston, we do not know the causes. Therefore further studies are under way to help identify possible causes.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, bearing in mind that parents of children in these areas must be worried sick and absolutely terrified by Questions on the Order Paper like this one, if there are any assurances to be given to parents will the Minister see that they are given?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords. I wish to goodness we could put quad erat demonstrandum at the bottom of this Question. Unfortunately we are now in a position where we might better use the Scottish legal verdict of not proven. But so far as reassurance to parents is concerned, I take the noble Lord's point.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that there are clusters of leukaemia dissociated from nuclear power all over the country; that the largest cluster in Scotland is around Inverness, which does not have a nuclear power station anywhere near it; and that in Cornwall, where the natural radiation dosage is far in excess of anything that would be authorised for a nuclear power station, there appears to be no cluster of leukaemia at all?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords. I am aware that there are clusters in this country totally unconnected with anything to do with nuclear power.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, do the Government accept the conclusions of Sir Richard Doll's study? May I ask the noble Lord what is the nature of any compensation for any cases of leukaemia arising directly from government policy and what medical intervention is proposed for children in these areas in order to allay natural fears?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the disease we are talking about is leukaemia and the normal treatment for leukaemia would be appropriate in this case as in any other. As to whether we totally accept Sir Richard Doll's report, it recommends further study and it is the further study that we are carrying out.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, will the Government take steps to publicise the cluster effect in statistical analysis referred to by my noble friend a moment ago and warn the public against drawing the kind of false conclusions that have been drawn by the noble Lord opposite?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the point by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, is freely available in the published information. Whether we should do more than that I shall of course consider.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, while it is quite right to warn the public against reaching false conclusions, it is equally right to warn them against being satisfied with false reassurances?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not think that I have given false reassurances. I have said twice now that this matter is unproven.

Typing in Ministries: Postal Delays
3.11 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: 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 letters for typing in some ministries are sent by second-class mail to typing pools in the country, and if so what justification there is for the delay so caused and whether this places an extra workload on civil servants in producing drafts suitable for a distant pool typist.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the provision of typing services in the Civil Service is a matter for individual departments to organise to meet their operational needs. Most typing facilities are located close to users. Where less costly distant pools exist, the usual methods of sending non-urgent work to them are by direct van service or by electronic means. The geographical location of typing services does not affect the workload for authors of drafts.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, but does he not agree that there is considerable delay in government departments in producing any paper and that if it is possible to cut that down it should be done?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, our first objective should be to produce less paper. The systems which are now introduced within the Civil Service and which provide for outstations for typing pools—which are not to be confused with wine lakes!—are to ensure that the cost is some 40 per cent. lower than the cost of letters produced in central London locations. Often it is done by transferring the information by electronic means or by overnight van service. Delays are kept to the minimum and we shall ensure that they continue to be kept down.

Vaccine: Measles, Mumps and Rubella
3.12 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: 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 when the new triple vaccine against measles, mumps and rubella will be introduced.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, our intention is to add this combined vaccination to the childhood immunisation programme in approximately a year's time. It will be administered in place of and at the same time as the present vaccination against measles in the second year of life. The exact date will be announced as soon as possible.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but do the Government have plans for the elimination of the annual epidemic of measles? Do they recognise that that requires an inoculation rate of over 90 per cent., which has already been achieved in Sweden and the United States?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the present uptake for measles vaccine is 68 per cent. in England and Wales. We are making every effort to increase the uptake. I am aware of the situation in Sweden and the United States with the triple vaccine. We hope that it will be repeated here.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that during a debate on child health services on 28th October in your Lordships' House the same recommendation was made by Professor Graham of Great Ormond Street Hospital?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, I remember that.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I also remember it. The figures given by the Minister showed the relatively low uptake of vaccination against pertussis compared with vaccination against measles. The problem has existed with successive governments. Bearing that in mind, in a year's time when the new triple vaccine is available will there be a major publicity campaign to persuade the public to take the triple vaccine, which will therefore greatly increase the take-up of vaccine against whooping cough?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, I expect there will be. At the moment all district health authorities have medical officers responsible for immunisation purposes. I shall bring this matter to their attention in a speech that I am due to deliver to them next week.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, will the Government adopt the UNICEF objective of having every child in the world immunised against measles? Will they do everything they can to achieve that?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, clearly the noble Lord listened to the wireless this morning when the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, spoke. We are obviously extremely keen that as soon as possible this disease should no longer exist in the world. One of the ways in which we shall achieve its elimination in this country is to increase the uptake of immunisation.

Working of the House: Group Report
3.14 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw)The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw) rose to move, That this House takes note of the report by the group on the working of the House (HL Paper 9).
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, at the beginning of the last Session of Parliament I

989
announced that I proposed to set up an informal group drawn from all sides of your Lordships' House to examine the working of the House and to suggest improvements in the conduct of business. This followed a particularly arduous Session in which many felt that the pressure of business had tested our procedures to the full. The group presented me with its report in the final days of the last Parliament.
The document the group has produced not only reviews thoroughly all our procedures but is a mine of statistical and other information which will be a lasting source of information to anyone with an interest in parliamentary affairs. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking all in the group for their excellent work.
I understand that the convener of the group, my noble friend Lord Aberdare, proposes to say something in his speech, which follows mine, on the way in which the group set about its task and on its principal conclusions. At this stage of the debate I should like only to draw the House's attention to what, from my reading of the group's report and my knowledge both of this House and of another place. I consider to be the real question before the House not only this afternoon but every time it sits. It is this. Do we value our present ability to regulate our own affairs without a Speaker? Do we prefer not to go down the path of the 19th century House of Commons and so not resort to elaborate and inhibiting procedural rules? Can we, in other words, continue to enjoy that rare privilege of more or less unrestricted freedom of debate without exercising a collective determination to observe those few rules and conventions which we at present possess? Rarely is the House faced with a question so easy to answer in theory but so hard to live up to in practice.
Before I conclude I should like to indicate briefly how best I think we could proceed to take account of the report's findings. The debate this afternoon gives the House as a whole the opportunity of considering and commenting upon the recommendations contained in the report. When I have had an opportunity to consider what has been said in the debate I propose to lay the report before the Procedure Committee. The Procedure Committee will also have before it a paper from me, written in the light of this afternoon's debate, inviting it to consider what changes, if any, should be made to the procedural advice offered to Peers in the Companion to the Standing Orders.
The report of the Procedure Committee, embodying its recommendations, will then of course be laid before the House for approval in the usual way. This course of action follows exactly what was done in 1971 when a similar exercise was conducted. I am pleased and grateful that I have the support of the leaders of all parties in proposing that we follow the same course in connection with the present report. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report by the group on the working of the House (HL Paper 9)—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
3.20 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I know that all the members of the group that has been responsible for the report would like me to say straight away how very grateful we are to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for his kind words about us. Unfortunately one of our very valued members, the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn Davies, is unable to be here. She is in bed with a bad back and wishes to apologise to the House. I know that your Lordships will be very sorry that she is not here.
I was also glad to hear the noble Viscount refer to me as the convener of the group; I was indeed the convener and not the chairman. As your Lordships are accustomed to do, we conducted our affairs on the basis of self-regulation. We are all equally responsible for the report.
Let me pass on one or two of the words of thanks from the noble Viscount to others. First, let me thank our clerks, who served us extremely well. Many of our discussions ranged very widely; indeed, it was not unknown for us to change our minds between one meeting and another. They have very skilfully distilled the essence of our deliberations into the report. Most importantly, I thank all noble Lords who took the trouble to reply to our questionnaire. We received well over 200 replies. Most of them came from noble Lords who attend fairly frequently. However, all were of extreme interest. They were an immense help to us in compiling the report and most of our recommendations are based on the replies.
In general we are of the opinion that, despite the increased numbers in the House and the pressure of business, the House has not lost its traditional character. It has successfully adapted its procedures to meet changed circumstances. We do not think that external pressure should force us to make any fundamental change to our tried procedures. Our recommendations seek to continue the process of gradual change. We rejected early on any question of a Speaker with controlling powers. That suggestion found hardly any support among the vast majority of noble Lords replying to the questionnaire. We therefore re-emphasise the importance of self-regulation and the need for all Members of the House to be fully aware of the Standing Orders and of the normal practices in the Companion to the Standing Orders.
We concluded that in many cases where there had been an abuse of normal practice, it occurred because of ignorance. A major recommendation in the report is that the Brief Guide to the procedure and practice of the House should be revised. A first shot at revising it is included as an annex to the report.
We also suggest that there should be an annual report from the Procedure Committee to draw special attention to breaches of normal procedure. We hope that that report will act as a continuous survey of our working and may avoid the need from time to time for appointing a special body such as ours.
I am not in any danger this afternoon of seeing red figures on the digital clock. However, I hope to set a good example and I shall not speak for very long. The whole purpose of the debate, as the Leader of the

991
House explained, is to listen to the views of your Lordships concerning the report. However, I should like to comment briefly on four important subjects in the report. They are Starred Questions, Statements, the stages of legislation and the length of speeches.
The first matter is that of Starred Questions. Opinion expressed in answer to our questionnaire was fairly evenly divided on the subject. Some noble Lords felt that Question Time was becoming somewhat unruly and that further regulation was required. Others felt that Question Time was one of the more lively interesting parts of the day's proceedings and that a certain amount of latitude was permissible. We are of the latter opinion. We see no need to change the present practice, which works reasonably well if the rules are adhered to. In particular, it provides a very good example of self-regulation at work. It is becoming quite normal to hear interruptions from the Back Benches on both sides of the House when someone asking a supplementary question fails to put it into interrogative form or is clearly making a statement rather than seeking information.
We suggest only that the Leader of the House or his deputy, hopefully with support from the Opposition Front Bench, should not hesitate to intervene when any one Question is unreasonably long. Discreet Back Bench protest, especially when it comes from all sides of the House, makes the task of interpreting the wishes of the House much easier.
In order to allow more Peers to initiate Questions, we suggest that no one noble Lord should have more than two Questions on the Order Paper at any one time, rather than the present number of three. On the other hand, we suggest that the present rule on supplementary questions—namely, that only one point should be covered in a supplementary question—should be slightly relaxed to allow not more than two points in any one supplementary question. That seems to us to be both more realistic and easier to enforce.
Turning to Statements and Private Notice Questions, they pose what is undoubtedly the most difficult problem of all and one on which opinion was most divided, particularly between the Front Benches and the Back Benches. There is general agreement that Statements—and I include in that category Answers to Private Notice Questions in another place, which are now repeated in the form of Statements—are a most irritating interruption in the main business of the day. However, there are those who consider that in many instances their political importance outweighs any inconvenience they may cause. The difficulty is that what one Peer may consider to be important does not necessarily appear so to another.
There is strong support for the view that ministerial Statements made in another place should not, save in very exceptional circumstances, be repeated orally in this House. Rather, they should be printed in Hansard. As your Lordships will be aware, that has already been done in some cases and particularly, for example, in the case of certain Statements on meetings of EC Ministers. Those who have put that view forward argue first that the Minister repeating the Statement in this House is in
992
a very difficult position in answering supplementary questions, in that he cannot be expected to commit a senior Minister in another place on matters of policy or politics. Secondly, it is felt that such proceedings make no impact outside this Chamber. The television cameras are not permitted to cover repeated Statements and any press interest is naturally concentrated on the responsible Minister in another place. Thirdly, there is almost inevitably a tendency for repeated Statements to degenerate into mini-debates in total disregard of the rules of order.
Our recommendation is that ministerial Statements made in another place should rarely be repeated in this House and that supplementary questions on them should be limited to 20 minutes. That reflects the majority opinion of those replying to the questionnaire.
So far as Private Notice Questions are concerned, we recommend that there should be no change in the Leader's responsibility for deciding whether or not to accept a Private Notice Question originating in this House but that the system of repeating Answers to Private Notice Questions originating in another place in the form of a Statement should be discontinued.
With regard to legislation, we recognise the extremely important part played by this House in the legislative process. We are most anxious not to restrict the proper consideration of Bills in any way. For that reason, we feel unable to accept the suggestion that amendments at Report stage should he restricted to the same degree as they are at present on Third Reading.
We draw attention to the existing rules governing the Report stage and the Third Reading which tend to be ignored from time to time and we recommend that they should be strictly adhered to. We further recommend that concluding speeches at the final stage of a Bill, that is either at the Third Reading or on the Motion that the Bill do now pass, should be relevant to the Bill in its final form and should not be a further opportunity to regret what is not included in the Bill.
The length of speeches is the last matter I should like to deal with. This subject has caused concern to the House for a great many years. In 1576 Queen Elizabeth told Lord Keeper Bacon to stop speaking. In 1887 and 1890 Bills were introduced seeking to impose time limits—one hour for privy councillors and 15 minutes for the rest—and proposing that the Clerk ring a bell if these were exceeded. In 1965 the House agreed to the Motion of Lord Egremont that speeches should be shorter, and in 1972 we put in the digital clocks.
There is no doubt at all that most of your Lordships prefer short speeches—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Chairman of Committees:—particularly from others. There is no doubt also that our limited time debates have been a considerable success. There are those who advocate the wider use of time limits, but we prefer to continue with exhortation and an appeal to self-interest on the grounds that a long speech is almost invariably counter-productive. However, we have suggested somewhat more

993
restricted guidelines of 20 minutes for those opening or winding up debates and 15 minutes for other speakers. We hope that the process of self-regulation will reinforce these guidelines and that discreet murmurings might draw the attention of the speaker if he exceeds them.
To reinforce this process we also suggest that the figures on the digital clocks should show in red after 15 minutes. Even though the speaker may pay no attention to the change of colour, others who are not so carried away by his oratory might bring it to his notice. May I say, my Lords, that my masculine adjective of course embraces the female although in my experience they offend much less frequently, if ever.
Finally, I noticed with great interest in The Times yesterday that several elderly Chinese revolutionaries have been transferred,
"to the Central Advisory Commission, a body of elder statesmen whose size and possibly influence will have been boosted by its new members".
It seems that China, in her wisdom, is creating life Peers and a sort of House of Lords. I hope that the noble Viscount might consider having our report translated into Chinese for their benefit. I have said enough, and I leave it to your Lordships to make short speeches and to enjoy a good introspective debate.
3.33 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, the opening speeches of the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, have set an example which we must all follow as from today. I am bound to say that it is interesting that this debate follows the 1971 report when the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, was chairman. I had assumed that he chaired the inquiry that has led to this debate but it may be just because his name begins with an "A" that it appears first in the report. It is a very well written report. It is one with which I almost wholly agree.
It is interesting to make comparisons with the 1971 report. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, took part in the debate at that time. The chief difference is that only a dozen Peers spoke in that debate whereas today there are 27 speakers. I think your Lordships have done extraordinarily well to have kept our procedure most of the time in an orderly fashion.
The main point brought out and to which I have referred previously is the importance of the role of the Leader and of the Leader of the Opposition. I remember, when I was Leader of the House, that I could always rely on support. I recall Lord Swinton, when he saw me in trouble, getting up and saying, "We must listen to the noble Lord the Leader of the House and desist." I do not think he knew what the trouble was. The fact is that there is general support for order in the House, and that is absolutely crucial.
I say again that the Government place a very heavy burden both on their Lords in Waiting and junior Ministers who sometimes have to cope with a fractious situation without the authority of the Leader or the Chief Whip whose presence can smooth the proceedings.
994
This House runs largely on good manners rather than rules. It is important we should remember that. When I was first in the House I did not know Lord Salisbury. I was a member of the Labour Party and I thought he was probably a right-wing reactionary. But he was a man of such good manners and charm that he was an example to us all. I hope we will bear this in mind.
One of the differences between ourselves and the Commons is that we normally give way when a noble Lord wants to interrupt. Obviously if one is in the middle of a sentence one will not give way. Nor will one do so if the noble Lord has tried six times already to intervene. But the general custom is that we do give way in this House. That is an example of the importance of our good manners.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, listed a number of points and mentioned Question Time. Once again restraint is called for. I agree that we do not want significantly to alter our rules in that respect.
I turn now to the passage on Public Bill Committees. I was one of those who served on the Public Bill Committee on the Pilotage Bill. I thought, on balance, that it was a success. So, I believe, did other noble Lords including the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne. I would be sorry if we abandoned the attempt, although there is a good deal to be said for choosing a less controversial Bill. The Government failed to realise just how controversial it was going to be. If they had asked, they would have found out. There is a need to provide more time for a noble Lord to slip out of the Committee Room and to return for a vote. Therefore, I favour meeting in the morning. It imposes a real strain if we meet in the afternoon when other business is going on. It is a worthwhile activity and I hope that the Government will continue the experiment with a suitable Bill this Session.
I turn to the question of ad hoc committees on which there has been some discussion. I speak now as Chairman of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology in succession to the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield. We take up a great deal of the time of the clerks; so do the European Committees. It would be useful to pick ad hoc subjects. We had a very good one a few years ago on trade and employment. I hope that some procedure can be devised with perhaps some of the chairmen of committees selecting a suitable subject rather than it being adopted as the result of a random move by one individual. I remember that the first of these committees was the child of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and very successful it was. The Leaders no doubt will consult on this, and I ask them to consider some procedure. I repeat the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, that there should be more support for committees. I could have brought into the Chamber a cartload of paper on space, a subject on which I chair a sub-committee. We have one clerk and one adviser, who lives in Manchester. For half the time the clerk does not have a secretary. That is intolerable when we have to produce reports such as that on civil science under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, which the Government admit have influenced their decisions. We do not need a great deal of help. But something more, even if not up to the level of the Commons—at least an additional

995
researcher who could do some of the reading and identify matters which have to be looked at—might be considered.
There is an enormous quantity of paper and nowhere to store it. Many Peers do not have an office; some have no desk. This presents a great problem. I believe that the Library could do more in this connection, but the Library itself is short of resources. I understand that a proposal it made for a third research member has been consistently turned down. If you compare what happens in the American Senate, where every senator has 30 assistants, where there is a library of Congress and an office of technology assessment, we really do treat ourselves very badly.
I mention one other example of modern organisation. It would be awfully nice and would speed up proceedings if the lifts could go a little faster. I timed a lift in another building this morning. It went up to the eleventh floor in 30 seconds. Here, it takes over two minutes or longer to go from the ground floor to the second floor, allowing time for the lift to arrive. That is material to the working of the House.
I hope there will be some consideration of extra support for committees. I need not go into the conclusions of the group about amendments on Third Reading. Indeed, the noble Lords have described procedure on the length of speeches. I remember on a previous occasion the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, I believe, suggesting that we have ejector seats in the House of Lords, for those who speak for too long. I do not think we need go that far. I would however urge all noble Lords to read the report which is as good an introduction to the procedures and customs of this House as any I have seen. By and large, I am a conservative with regard to our procedures and I think the group have reached the right conclusion.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, this is an excellent report. I rise to give it the fullest support and to extend my compliments to those who contributed to it. One had only to read the list of names of those taking part to see that it would be an excellent report. I am glad to see that the group has resisted the temptation which all committees of this kind fall into when asked to look into procedures, of suggesting a great variety of changes. It has considered everything most carefully. The report gives a great deal of background information and reaches the conclusion that there should be no change in our fundamental procedures. We welcome that completely—a feeling, shared, I hope, by every one of your Lordships. It follows that if we accept that view, as I am sure we do, there arises no question of selection of amendments, which would be wholly inconsistent with such an attitude.
The group was asked to look at improvements in the conduct of business. That does not necessarily mean at all costs finding time-saving ideas—certainly not at the cost of the quality or our work or the usefulness of our function. I am therefore delighted that the group has recommended that the Report
996
stage should not be further limited, as the noble Lord has just reminded us.
I daresay that those of your Lordships who, like myself, have had the experience of being responsible for the management of a number of Bills and dealing with opposition and proposed amendments to them will reach the conclusion I have formed—that the Committee stage is somewhat of a trawl. It is not an attempt to have precisely worded amendments accepted by the Government. It is an attempt to find out what is in the Government's mind and to discover those areas where Ministers might be willing to be a little flexible. It follows that you need full facility and full freedom at the Report stage to take advantage of everything that the Government and, indeed, all Members have said during the Committee stage so as to be able at that point to put down a precisely worded amendment and, if necessary, to press the Government on it.
There is one area where I am wholly in disagreement with the recommendations; that is, on paragraph 78, which recommends that Statements should be offered to opposition parties with the presumption that they will not be delivered orally but will be printed in Hansard. I oppose that on two simple grounds. First, it is a severe diminution of the rights of an opposition party in your Lordships' House and, secondly, it is clearly a limitation and a diminution of the rights of your Lordships' House. In this House, we work in a complementary fashion to the other place, but we nevertheless have the responsibility of looking at all Bills. We do not say that Bills we do not like or do not want to discuss in great depth will simply appear under their names in Hansard, or anything like that. We discuss everything on the basis that legislation has to go through both Houses—all legislation, with one obvious and minor exception.
I feel exactly the same with regard to Statements. There are Statements of a kind wholly within the realm of the other place and of practically no interest to this place relating to matters where we have, by consent, no major responsibility. Of course, such Statements do not need to be repeated. It is for the Opposition parties to be consulted but not on the basis that there is an understanding that only in the rarest cases will they ask for a Statement or a PNQ to be repeated.
Instead of the presumption that Statements are not to be delivered orally, I prefer no presumption at all—no presumption that they will be taken and no presumption that they will be refused. Each case should be decided by the usual channels on the merits of the issue that is being considered.
There are, however, three time-savers—one minor and two major—which I am pleased to see and which I support. The minor one concerns maiden speeches. I wholly share the view that it is not necessary, in terms of courtesy and welcome to the maiden speaker, to have more than one following speaker congratulating him or her. It is for that reason, not out of discourtesy nor because I have not looked at the list of speakers that I make no comment whatever on any speakers who are to follow. I take the view that the recommendation is a good one. By the time a maiden speaker has been congratulated for the fifth,

997
sixth and seventh time, all attempts at sincerity are lost and the practice means nothing except a slight waste of time in your Lordships' House. Therefore, I hope that the recommendation will be followed.
I put one recommendation for saving time to the Leader of the House. We are in trouble every summer and that is followed every autumn by the Leader of the House saying: "I will arrange business so that this never happens again." He means it with the greatest sincerity but he is always wrong because we are always in trouble. This does not refer only to the present Leader of your Lordships' House: it has always been the case since I joined this House in 1970.
What suggestion can I make to overcome this difficulty? It is very simple. The Government in arranging their legislative programme should provide for a contingency allowance. The Government know what programme they can reasonably accommodate and appear to go for that, but it is always the case that the Government have to respond to some activity which requires new legislation which they did not anticipate at the start of the business year. That takes up additional time. The only way in which to deal with it is to provide an allowance—what I might call a contingency allowance—because that provides for what one cannot foresee.
Yesterday we were discussing the Autumn Statement and budgeted expenditure. In the statement this time there was the largest ever contingency allowance. That used not to be the case. I remember the difficulty I personally had as Chief Secretary in getting my colleagues to accept the necessity for a contingency allowance. It is now part of the normal procedure and under this Government it has increased and increased until we have a record figure now. I hope that the Government and the Leader of the House, who perhaps has a major responsibility in this matter, will give some thought to that suggestion.
As regards the Public Bill Committee, the figures show that no greater time was spent on the Committee stage than would have been spent had the Committee stage taken place in the Chamber. The Report stage was no longer than it would otherwise have been. The evidence of the report is that time was saved in the Chamber; perhaps two days. If you think that the Report stage went on a fraction longer than it might otherwise have done and the time saved was perhaps only one-and-a-half days, it was still a useful saving. The report concludes that this procedure should be used only when there is great pressure on the time of the Chamber.
That is an excellent conclusion. I can therefore see no reason why those who are more friendly disposed to this kind of procedure or less friendly disposed to it need not unite on that proposition. There is obviously no need to take business away from the Floor of the House when there is time available in the Chamber and it should be used only to relieve pressure on the time of the Chamber. I conclude as I started by thanking the Committee for a most excellent report.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive such an early intrusion into its counsels but mindful of the need to be non-controversial, and with my experience in another place in business management and the usual channels, the temptation presented by a debate on this report was irresistible. I was delighted when the noble Lords, Lord Denham and Lord Ponsonby, agreed to act as sponsors for my introduction into this place because I had what my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick assures me is a noble prial of Chief Whips. If anybody does not play brag then I apologise to their Lordships.
As I am speaking of Chief Whips perhaps I may say that I regret the untimely death of my great friend and former parliamentary colleague John Silkin, because in all probability he would have been a fount of great wisdom for this House.
I would not presume to comment in detail on the report except to say that I very much appreciated the depth of the study and the statistical detail which was contained in it. However, having been a Chief Whip in another place for some 10 years, I felt that I had some justification for speaking on the aspect of the usual channels. I believe it was the right honourable Enoch Powell who said that the whipping system is as necessary to Parliament as a sewerage system is to a modern city.
On entering another place in 1970 I was invited by my noble friend Lord Mellish to become a Junior Whip in opposition. The noble Lord taught me a most important lesson: the Government have to get their business. Whether the Government get their business easily or with great difficulty depends on a number of variables to which I need not refer here, but in the end, as long as they command a majority on the Floor of the House, they must get their business. I must confess that during the passage of the industrial relations legislation in the early 1970s I veered towards being an abolitionist of the House of Lords. In the other place I worked for two-thirds of my time in the usual channels. I saw how the system works and realised the importance of the House of Lords, how it is an infinitely subtle counterpart to the other place, both complementary and supplementary. I have now come to the same conclusion as a former Bristol colleague of mine, formerly the Member for Bristol, South-East and now the right honourable Member for Chesterfield. In a Fabian pamphlet written during the mid 1950s he came to the conclusion that a Labour Government actually need the House of Lords more than a Conservative Government.
The revising function of this Chamber is manifestly obvious and indeed helped me in the other place in Government during some difficult Report stages to resolve impasses by promising action at this end of the building and also to balance the load of legislation. I know that it may inconvenience noble Lords during the late spring and summer months but it is a very effective counter balance and enables the entire Government programme to be processed.
In addition to the report that is under discussion I read the report produced in 1971. In one respect I do not think that report was quite as diplomatic as the

999
present one. I was surprised to find in Chapter V paragraph 29(b) the recommendation that:
"good speakers should be more evenly spaced throughout the Debate and a conscious effort should be made to strengthen the weak part of long Debates".
I must confess that either that was wrong or things have improved greatly since my recent arrival because I have yet to hear in this Chamber anything other than what could be described as a good speech. The other point which I did not quite understand about this report and which I mention just in passing arises in paragraph 27. It refers to people being selected to speak:
"to whom the Whips have obligations".
I must say that when I used to run things we used to try to get it the other way round.
Self-regulation is very much open to abuse. In the 1971 report there is a reference to abuse. It refers to abuse even by a tiny minority and mentions two Peers who had taken 25 places for Starred Questions. Those places ultimately had to be shared out when some were withdrawn. That is an abuse of the system. Abuse is also mentioned in the current document under discussion by your Lordships. Paragraph 45 states:
"Some members ask many more Questions than others, and a few usually have their full ration of three on the Order Paper".
It continues,
"eight Lords asked over 30 per cent. of the total, and one Lord asked 37 Questions".
Self-regulation depends on self-restraint and I would not presume to advise your Lordships on how to deal with it. Elaborate procedural structures do not protect. I am sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, will recall the beginning of the Committee stage of the European Accession Bill when points of order ran on for something like 14 hours. When Members in the other place were a trifle recalcitrant—a slightly strong word perhaps, but it will do—I would say if some of them were abusing the system, "Don't you understand that if everybody behaved as you are doing the whole thing would collapse?"
That was for individuals, but there were one or two organised cases of abuse when during what has become known as the winter of discontent the Opposition organised—in fact admitted in the end concerting—several applications every day for emergency debates under Standing Order No. 9. I am glad to say that this was dealt with by the help of my noble friend Lord Molloy, who one day applied for an emergency debate on the abuse of the emergency debate procedure! With his assistance the Opposition chucked it.
I must not weary the House. I am very pleased to have had the opportunity to serve my country and my party in Parliament. I hope to continue to do so. The whole system works on self-restraint and I could do no better than to summarise the way in which the committee concludes its report, that the rights of us all depend on everybody respecting other people's rights.
I thank noble Lords for their considerate hearing.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am sure that I speak for all of your Lordships when I say how much I have enjoyed the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe. He fascinated us with his account of certain aspects of his distinguished past career. Indeed, for one moment I thought that we were going to be favoured with some interesting revelations. The whole speech was delivered in a delightful way. I am sure that I speak again for all of your Lordships in saying that a noble Lord who has managed the Labour Party in another place for a great many years has nothing to fear from any problems in your Lordships' House. We look forward very much to hearing him speak to us frequently.
The report of what one might call the eminent persons' group takes the line that our procedure, subject to certain detailed changes, is pretty good and that the principle of self-regulation is pretty good but that its weakness is in respect of enforcement. I want to say a word about that.
If noble Lords are to maintain our rules and enforce them, as manifestly they are sometimes not enforced, particularly at Question Time, it is necessary that there should be on the Government Front Bench a member of the Government concerned to act on behalf of the Leader of the House. We all appreciate that the advantage in having the Deputy Prime Minister as Leader of the House carries with it the disadvantage that obviously his attendance must be limited by his other duties. I suggest that his deputy—and I suggest that he should have deputies—should be present throughout at any rate most debates in order to help to secure that the House enforces its own rules.
It is very difficult for the Minister in charge of a Bill or debate, who in the nature of things is trying to carry things on and achieve good will, also to assume the role of adviser on discipline. There is a separate function on behalf of the Leader of the House which it seems to me should be performed by some fairly senior Minister regularly on the Bench throughout our debates. With respect, I commend that suggestion to my noble friend the Leader of the House.
I find myself in complete agreement—an unusual experience for me—with the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in his comments on the business of Statements. It seems to me that Statements should be made to Parliament, not just to another place. If the House is to remain relevant to the problems of the day, it is entitled to demand, and should secure, the making of all major Statements by the Government to it. I know, because I have suffered from it, how tiresome it is when a debate in which one is interested, and when one is sitting there clutching one's speech, is interrupted by one Statement or two Statements. It is exasperating.
I wonder whether the eminent persons have considered the weakening in status and position of the House if, as the committee recommends, only very major and occasional Statements are repeated here. This would surely to some extent downgrade the position of the House. It would certainly, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said, cause the

1001
Opposition some unnecessary disadvantage—I am not against that on principle—and is perhaps a point worth mentioning. We should also be giving the Government a certain disadvantage, because it is quite useful for them to hear in this House the reaction of noble Lords on both sides, particularly as your Lordships' House is packed increasingly with ex-Ministers who have some experience generally of the matters covered by Statements. I hope very much that we shall continue the present policy on Statements.
The alternative offered by the group is to have a report of the Statement in Hansard. I do not value that very highly. We do not receive Hansard until the next day. In any event, one can get such a report much better from Hansard of another place, which will include the interruptions and comments that were made when the Statement was given. I sincerely hope that your Lordships will hesitate very much before agreeing to the proposal to cut down on Statements. I quite agree that some Statements of a purely technical or minor nature can probably be dealt with in that way, as they have been in the past. However, as to the substantial change suggested by the committee, I for one am very much against it. as I hope your Lordships will be.
I have one comment on the reference in the report to time limited debates. I am not an enthusiast for these, for two reasons. One is that the more important and interesting the subject the greater the number of speakers who put down their names and the shorter the time per speech. Per contra, if one selects a thoroughly dull subject that interests no one, one has a large ration of time. That seems to be a reversal of what one should aim at doing.
It also has one great disadvantage. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, referred, quite rightly, to the proper policy in the House of giving way when one is challenged by another noble Lord. If, as happened the other day in a time limited short debate, one has only six minutes, one cannot possibly afford to give way to a noble Lord opposite because half one's time will be swallowed up in such an interruption. If one cannot give way, it is on the whole difficult to refer to previous speeches. It would be unfair to criticise the speech of another noble Lord and then fail to give way to him. There is therefore the risk of turning a so-called debate into something that ceases to be a debate but becomes an essay reading society in which each noble Lord produces a speech with complete disregard for what has been said before, to be followed by noble Lords doing precisely the same to the speeches of the preceding speakers.
The only other two points I wish to make are these. The first is on Starred Questions. The point is made—and it is a good one—that no noble Lord should have more than two Questions on the Order Paper at any one time. I support that. However, I wish that your Lordships would consider being much firmer on the rule against the reading of supplementary questions. If a noble Lord has written out his supplementary question—and we have all seen it happen—before he has even heard the Answer from the Minister it is an abuse of the practice of the House. I very much hope that whoever is in charge of
1002
the House when such an abuse occurs in future will be quite firm in dealing with it.
My remaining point concerns time. I am heretical about the dinner hour. In the House of Commons, many years before the time of any of us, there used to be what was called the "Speaker's chop". That was abolished. The other place sits through the dinner hour, although I have sometimes observed that those who organise its debates arrange for those Members of another place who are, shall we say, less exciting speakers to be called during that period. But it seems absurd, as has happened in the last few weeks, that we should rise a little after seven for an hour and then come back in order to continue for another hour-and-a-half making all noble Lords who are conscientiously attending go home much later than they need. I take the point about the strain on Ministers and Opposition Front Bench spokesmen but they all have supporters and seconders and they can—as they do in another place for many hours—perfectly well sustain the burden of debate for a fairly limited time. It seems a pity that we should all adjourn so much later simply because we keep this old-fashioned dinner hour.
The other point was rather driven home to me by our proceedings today. When we have introductions—and today we had two—surely it is possible, as has happened, for us to sit not at 2.30 but at two o'clock so that the main proceedings of the day do not start later than necessary. If I were not subject to the same feelings as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, on keeping one's speech short, I would deploy a number of arguments. However, I hope that I have deployed enough to suggest that there is much to discuss which I hope the Procedure Committee will discuss and to which your Lordships' House will give most careful attention. There are few things so important to the efficient working of this House—a matter about which some of us care a great deal—than getting its procedure right. It is worth taking quite a lot of trouble to do so.
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, this is the second time that I have had the honour to represent the Cross-Benches on the group dealing with the working of the House. The last debate was 16 years ago. As a group we felt that 16 years was rather a long time. We have therefore suggested that this should be looked at regularly, annually, not with the thought that one will get changes every year, but that perhaps every five years the Leader might say, "Now is a suitable time." We should not let quite such a long time pass as before.
I thought that it would be useful to check what happened in the debate on the report in 1971. Perhaps I may digress for a moment. I could not find the 1971 report at my home. Therefore at 6 o'clock last night I rang up the Printed Paper Office and asked, "Could you find this for me? I do not know the date but it was some time around July and if it were possible to get it for this morning that would be a great advantage to me." Believe it or not, my Lords, not only did the Printed Paper Office find the document but it was on my table with the post this morning. I therefore pay tribute to the Printed Paper Office and to the Post Office. It really is remarkable.

1003
On the whole our report is the responsibility of your Lordships. Your Lordships' answers to the questionnaire were, as last time, very full and very valuable. Noble Lords will find that we have mainly followed and adopted what they wanted.
I shall touch on only three issues. The first concerns who keeps order. As you all know there is no such thing in this House as a point of order. Your Lordships can say "Order, order" but noble Lords cannot appeal on rules as a point of order. It is very important to remember this because sometimes, in particular for those who have been in another place, the temptation is to think that they can exploit in just that way. I know that I, and I am sure all members of the group, rejoiced in having the idea of the equivalent of a Speaker almost unanimously turned down. But there is a corollary to that. We must know the rules. On the last occasion we suggested a brief guide. This time we thought that the brief guide should be revised with more emphasis on drawing attention to the rules and how noble Lords can help in keeping under control those who are transgressing customs. However, I should also say: do not let us overdo it, my Lords. There is a temptation with one or two speakers for us to intervene too easily. We must therefore be careful to keep the right balance.
My second point was on the abuse of Question Time. That takes two forms: there are too many supplementaries, or questions wide of the mark. I do not think that we put it clearly in our report but I know we felt that very often it is for the Ministers themselves to keep control. If somebody asks three or four supplementary questions all that Ministers have to do is answer only two. If a question is wide of the mark they merely say, "That is wide of the mark." I have noticed recently that that has become a more usual practice. I feel quite clear and confident that the whole House would support Ministers if they gave such answers to those questions which are outside the rules.
The third issue concerns how to avoid long speeches. Sixteen years ago we suggested the clock. The clock has been of some help but not altogether effective. I do not think we shall ever find the total solution but we have suggested, as noble Lords will know, the idea that after 15 minutes there should be a red light. We did not think that to have a bell ringing would be appropriate. We had a good deal of discussion on whether we should use a red light after 10 or 12 minutes but we came to the conclusion that 15 minutes was the right answer. I hope that noble Lords will support us in this matter and that we are now going into what I would call not the red light district but the red light era!
I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, on the question of Statements. This is a very difficult and delicate matter. I can remember that 20 or 30 years ago there were very few Statements in this House and we were rather unhappy about that. Then the clock swung the other way. There are almost too many Statements in this House. We felt that that was really the case, so we represented that they should become much more rare. But perhaps we went too far; I do not know. Undoubtedly the House and the Procedure Committee will consider what has been
1004
said by both the noble Lords, Lord Diamond and Lord Boyd-Carpenter. There are many Statements that are not necessary for us to repeat, but there is the odd one more often than we think which should be allowed. That must be a matter of good sense and judgment.
As I believe I am the only other speaker from the group today, I should like to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said and confirm our great thanks to Mr. Wheeler-Booth and his assistants. Without their work and their study on all the statistics which they produced for us the report would not have been nearly as valuable as I hope it is and it would certainly have made duller reading.
Lastly I recall that the report, this time and the previous time, has been unanimous. There was no dissension on any point. That is perhaps a tribute to our wisdom, but it is certainly due to the good sense and humour of those with whom I worked and whom I count among my friends, perhaps before but certainly now.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I should like to start by thanking the group for the report, which is quite excellent. Its substance is to recommend the existing constitution and, with a few marginal amendments, to reject the idea of a Speaker. I am sure that that is right.
A parliamentary debating chamber like ours, in which each noble Lord has an equal responsibility for keeping order, is not only unusual but is probably unique in the whole world. It must surely be the ultimate refinement of democratic working and therefore in my judgment it is an institution to be preserved at all costs. It is to me gratifying—and I think perhaps it may be a matter of universal gratification—that today this debate takes place against a background of all-party approval of the House of Lords as our second Chamber of Government: certainly once lost it could never be re-created by rational legislation. It is the product of our history and our temperament. Each noble Lord is an integral part of the House and of equal value and authority within it, and each has equal responsibility, as the Writ says, "to be personally present to treat and give his counsel to the Crown."
Hereditary Peers, whose forebears have worked and embellished these traditions, stand equally with life Peers. We all have equal rights to be heard and equal responsibilities to keep order for ourselves and for the House. This is the message which this report delivers and by its recommendations seeks to strengthen and to clarify.
In most parliamentary chambers order is maintained by a Speaker clothed with authority. In such chambers—and the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, will well know this—there is sometimes an advantage to be gained by stretching the rules of order to make a political point. Without disrespect to right honourable and honourable members in another place, I would say that such tactics are not unknown there. It is therefore understandable, especially for those of us who have come up from another place, to be tempted to take advantage of this freedom to advance our cause, even at the expense of breaching

1005
our rules of order. It takes time to understand that such action is not only a breach of the rules of order but also likely to be counter-productive because it will offend rather than influence the House.
Our system of order comes under strain particularly, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, at Question Time, either through unawareness by the noble Lord concerned or through over-enthusiasm which takes him out of order. Then he fails to respond to the murmurs of, "Order, order", from other noble Lords. As the offence continues, there is a tendency for a shouting match to develop, which is not conducive to the dignity of the House. If my noble friend the Leader is present he intervenes and the offender accepts his guidance, but it is not in the best interests of the House for the Leader always to be long stop for breaches of order. He is not in charge of the House, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said. We are all equally responsible and it is most unfortunate if the Leader gets into a magisterial role.
Each Peer has an equal responsibility for keeping order, so there is a role for individual Peers to call attention to the offender. I was glad to see that this point is commended in the report in paragraph 16(b), with the further refinement, which I think is very important—and I say this particularly to the Front Bench opposite—that some interventions can best be made by a Peer on the same side as the offender. This avoids any indication of partisanship in the intervention. I hope this may be accepted as part of our conventions.
In this connection I should like to pay a special tribute to the Clerk of the Parliaments and his colleagues for accepting the duties since 1983 of advising Peers on the drafting of parliamentary Questions and Motions on the Order Paper. Acceptance of this advice has not always been easy. That our Order Paper is now free from parliamentary solecisms is a tribute to the wisdom and diplomacy of the Clerks.
The report makes further helpful recommendations with regard to the limit of Question Time, the length of speeches on debate and clocks turning red at 15 minutes to indicate stop—there is no suggestion of a system of endorsement, with perhaps suspension after three times, but perhaps that will come later!
I welcome the announcement of my noble friend the Leader to send the report, with the debate and his comments, to the Procedure Committee for detailed consideration with a view to amendment of the Companion. In particular I commend the Brief Guide, to which the noble Earl, Lord Perth, referred, in Annex C of the report. Not all Peers are familiar with the 230 pages of the Companion but all might feel inclined to read this succinct summary for the benefit of themselves and the House. All Peers should be given a copy of it.
I conclude with the thought about the role of the House in the government of our country. This House has changed significantly in the 21 years since I arrived here. No doubt it will continue to change. In my judgment the three major factors for change have
1006
been undoubtedly, first, the television screen. This has shown the working of the House to the nation. Our people like what they have seen; they trust and respect it. It would now be politically impossible, in my judgment, either to ignore or to abolish the House of Lords.
Secondly, life Peers increase in number; in the working House, as it is defined in the report, they now exceed hereditary Peers by 217 to 163. This no doubt loses us something, but it strengthens the professional element in the House, which is another important factor. The third factor is the increased number of Cross-Bench and independent Peers. They now amount to 143, which is enough to win any vote, as my noble friend the Leader knows too well.
The tradition that the House of Lords avoids conflict with the Commons continues to be observed with meticulous care, but amendments of government Bills are permitted within this convention. At the end of the day this can and does have an important influence on Government legislation. In the past eight years of Conservative government this Government have been defeated 107 times. A number of those defeats have been reversed but a number of others have been accepted. This demonstrates that there is no automatic Conservative majority and that the collective voice of the Cross-Bench Peers can be decisive on one side or the other on any important issue.
It is evident that the influence of the House of Lords has grown in the overall government of our country, primarily as a moderating influence on government policy and as a stabilising factor for our country. This increased influence will continue in future governments of both parties. I believe it is seen as a benefit to our country. The strength and quality of this influence is as much a product of the form of debate in this House as it is of our political convictions and intellect. This underlines the wisdom of reviewing the working of this House and the value of the report that we have received.
4.31 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, in paying tribute to the Clerk of the Parliaments and all his staff and at the same time to all those who serve us here possibly under the auspices of Black Rod or in the Library. There was an aspect of the noble Lord's speech towards the end which I will not go into now. It raises difficult questions as to how far there is or is not a built-in majority here, but I shall not pursue that this afternoon.
The late Lord Salisbury—who, along with the late Lord Addison, did more than anyone to mould the House as we know it—once said in my hearing (he may have said it more than once) that this is a House of Parliament and not a club. But of course he did more than anyone to make sure that it was a club, possibly the best club in the world but certainly the most unsnobbish club in the world. I remember when I first came here that Lord Addison could collect barely a dozen Labour Peers. The way they were treated by Lord Salisbury made sure that this place would be at once a House of Parliament and a club in the best sense in both cases.

1007
I do not know how noble Lords feel when they get elected or appointed to a club. They may, with the late Groucho Marx, say, "It can't be much of a club if they elect me", but that is a rather rare point of view. I suppose when most of us join a club of any kind we allow other people to manage it. We assume that it will be well run, and this has proved so in this noble place. Some people want to manage it themselves, and we applaud their efforts too, but for my part I belong to the category of people who are ready to accept things unless something is obviously wrong. When the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, invited suggestions I am afraid that I did not make any. I do not feel that he lost anything from my abstention. I think on the whole he has produced a satisfactory account of a satisfactory working arrangement.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was here for many years before I arrived, but I have been here 42 years and one has seen these great changes, some of them touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. Certainly the increase in Labour Peers has made a tremendous difference. When we were just a little handful we could be swept aside or ignored. The only reason we were not treated in that way was partly the wisdom of Lord Salisbury and also the calculation that the country would take a poor view of the House of Lords if we were.
At any rate that has been a big change, and there has been the increase in life Peers and independents. Whether the fact that people have been made life Peers has made much difference is arguable. I suppose people would say that many would not have accepted peerages if the peerages were going to be handed on to their children. That seems very doubtful. In the years after the war people were perfectly ready in my experience to accept peerages when they were going to be handed on.
I doubt whether many people would have refrained. We know that Sir Winston Churchill refrained, but he was a law unto himself. I understand that Robert Maxwell declined a peerage, but it is not clear in what circumstances he was offered one. My admired friend Sir Isaiah Berlin, I believe, has turned down a peerage, and so it is said did Mr. Jack Jones. Those are the only cases known to me, but I am not saying this is the main point concerning life peerages.
The most obvious result and benefit, I suppose, is that we should have far more Peers now, and we would soon be accumulating large numbers of Peers if it were not for the life peerage system, as it is today, the title dying with the Peer. That is the main factor with life peerages.
Then we have had the women. That was resisted for many years here. For 40 years after the House of Commons people were still fighting it. I remember one noble Lord fighting it to the death. The argument was that they would interrupt our slumbers or studies in the Library and would want to share the lavatory. There were all sorts of problems.
One of the most distinguished Peeresses to date told me that when she came into the House what struck her was that so many chairs in the Library were facing the wall. One wonders what is the point of that arrangement but it obviously was to allow
1008
people to sleep in peace. At any rate, that was one argument for keeping the House as it was.
One Peer in the House will not believe what I am about to say but I hope he will take my word for it. One of the leaders of that opposition was asked, when there were only four of them, what he made of these women Peers, who undoubtedly were doing so well. He just groaned, and said, "When I see that long neck bending over I wish I had my chopper and I would go chop, chop, chop". That is a true story. The antagonism to women is inconceivable looking back, and now we have 64 women, a much more powerful force in this House than women in the House of Commons. It is all to the good.
The House will be surprised to hear what I am saying now and may not take it very seriously, but even Roman Catholic Peers have improved their status. In doing some researches I looked up Vacher's for 1945. The House may or may not believe this but the Roman Catholic Peers were put in italics. In 1945 the Roman Catholic Peers were second-class citizens. I take it as second-class and not as a sort of superlative type of Peer. That has been altered since and they have gradually established themselves.
There have been these big changes, but nevertheless the question arises—and I believe that at least one distinguished Peer will argue against the report today, but almost everyone agrees—whether we want to be a self-governing body in a way which is unique in the world. I imagine that it would never have occurred to anybody to have invented this system unless we happened to have evolved it. It is an odd system. When I listened to the noble Viscount I had great sympathy for him. I have great admiration always but sympathy when he is getting a little restive and the House is getting a little restive at Question Time. I also, as they say in Latin, believe I have lived in Arcadia. It is much worse now for him. I will not say that the Members are more recalcitrant now, but there are far more people who want to go on talking.
The noble Viscount will be relieved to hear that this is no new problem. When the Earl of Chatham came here he did not get on too well in his second speech. He was supposed to have flouted the House. He and the Duke of Richmond were compelled to come to the House and promise that they would not carry the matter any further; in other words, that they would not fight a duel. If anyone thinks that unlikely in the 18th century, well, it was not as unlikely as all that. The Duke of Wellington fought one 60 years later with a Peer, but not as a result of something said in the House. That was how things were sorted out by the House.
Many years later I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, coping with Lord Stansgate. There came a moment when Lord Hailsham said, "If the noble Lord persists, I must point out that I have my remedy". Lord Stansgate said, "Well, if the noble and learned Lord has his remedy, he had better use it". Then the Motion was moved that the House no longer hear Lord Stansgate. I am bound to say he was very happy with the whole thing and bounced up again asking more questions soon afterwards.
At any rate there have been these problems over the years and the noble Viscount is handling them with great skill. But certainly our system, which is a

1009
peculiar one, depends on great sagacity on the part of the Leader, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Whips, and we are fortunate in those who are running our affairs today.
I applaud the conclusion. I think that the House should reflect on it from time to time. We should remember that it is unique and that it requires exceptional wisdom on the part of those who are running the House and great good will on the part of Members. We are Members of the House and the club. I suppose that when one joins a club one does not expect that all the members will love each other. However, they respect each other and in this House that mutual respect is the secret of our success.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I should like to take up the recollection of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, as regards the then noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, moving that Lord Stansgate be no longer heard. I remember that occasion well and Lord Stansgate was very downcast. He was a miserable man on this Bench below the gangway and deserted by his own Front Bench. That is not a sight that I should like to see again. I have never heard that Motion moved to good effect and I should like to regard it as the nuclear weapon which should be in reserve but never used.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord to say that I was also present on that occasion. It was my impression that Lord Stansgate was determined that the Motion should be moved against him.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, that may be so, but afterwards he was an extremely miserable and lonely old man. Of course he bounced back again but that is what one would have expected of him.
I am warmly in agreement with the whole tone and tenor of the report and with all its recommendations, with the possible exception of one. I have one or two glosses and I am afraid that will make my speech both short and dull.
I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, say that this House is the ultimate refinement of democratic working. I recalled at once the words of Lord Stonham, who used to describe this House as the most democratic chamber in the world. Lord Stonham came into the House not kicking and screaming but not as a great admirer. He was eventually one of its most devoted Members. "Democratic" is not a bad word to describe this House, paradoxical though it may seem, because its proceedings are governed by the Members of the House. I am sure that it was that feeling which informed both the Leader of the House and the group when the Leader asked it to undertake this task.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, has quite properly lauded Lord Addison and Lord Salisbury, who were Leaders after the war. The House owes a great debt to all Leaders of the House and of the Opposition since that date. The noble Viscount who now leads the House is a notable continuation of that succession. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, agrees that the Leader of the House, though one of us, is primus inter pares; that is to say,
1010
he is a special person in a special position and for that matter so is the Leader of the Opposition.
There was one recent occasion on which I heard the Leader of the Opposition not exactly barracked but not welcomed when he rose to his feet. On that occasion I was rather ashamed. I believe that the respect due to the Leader of the Opposition is and should be profound in this House.
It is a matter of some pride that this House can operate substantially on the same basis as it has since 1621. The group puts this as "years ago", and indeed it is. It is as well to remember that in 1621 there was the first record of Standing Orders, but they are much older than that. This was, so to speak, a collection, if not a codification, of already existing Standing Orders. I believe that they existed for two or three centuries before 1621. It is therefore with pride that we should recall that the spirit of them is still operating.
They used to be styled Remembrances for Order and Decency to be kept in the Upper House of Parliament by the Lords. Those words are retained in the Standing Orders today. Now the Standing Orders are distanced not just by the Companion but also by the Brief Guide, so they are twice removed, so to speak. I hope that those splendid words, with their resonance of the authorised version, might be incorporated into the introduction to the Brief Guide. I feel that in the two words, "order- and "decency", the Standing Orders are encapsulated. It might be instructive and pleasant for us to be reminded of those words in the Brief Guide.
I doubt whether it is necessary for the Procedure Committee to report formally to the House once a year. It might be advantageous but it may tend to pillory noble Lords who have offended the House—either explicitly or, more likely, implicitly—and I doubt whether that is desirable.
As regards Commons Statements, I agree with what is stated in the report. I listened carefully to what the noble Lords, Lord Diamond and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said. I wonder whether the decision should not be made by the Opposition but through the usual channels and the test should be urgency. After all, that is the test for Private Notice Questions and it has worked very well over the past 40 years. I recommend the Procedure Committee to consider whether the urgency test should be the operative test for Statements as well as for Private Notice Questions.
I believe that there is a slight mistake in Recommendation (s). The group referred to the times allowed to the different categories of Peer. Unfortunately in the recommendation it refers to them as, "front benches and back benches". That must be a slip, because the relevant paragraph of the report refers to, "Lords opening or winding up debates", on the one hand, and to, "other speakers", on the other hand. There is a distinction between Lords opening or winding up debates and Front Benches, and they must not become confused as they have in the past. That is the only slip of any significance that I have noticed in the report and I thought that I should draw attention to it.

1011
I reluctantly but firmly disagree with the recommendation of red lights coming on after 15 minutes on the clock. In this House we have two systems and the timing of speeches during short debates is a comparatively recent introduction. I believe that we should keep the two systems apart. We should have either timed speeches, as in two-and-a-half-hour and five-hour debates, or we should have untimed speeches. By all means let there be a clock but I do not think it is right that an important speech should be interrupted after 15 minutes when perhaps the speaker is about to come to his conclusion. Sometimes the House may want to hear a good speaker talking on an important matter about which he knows a great deal for longer than 15 minutes. I do not think that that is a good suggestion and I should not like to see it adopted.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was very fair when he pointed to the ill effects of timed speeches; that is to say, that they preclude debate. There is no question about that matter and the group did not address itself to the question that interruptions, although permissible and desirable in other respects, are more or less inadmissible in a short debate where there are a large number of speakers, and particularly when the debate is for only two-and-a-half hours.
I would say this to the noble Lord. One of the interesting statistics in this excellent document shows that in the debates which are time-limited to five hours very seldom have speakers used their full allocation of time. The debates are nearly all between four and five hours. They last perhaps four hours and fifteen or twenty minutes, but not the full five hours. So I should have thought to that extent the five hour experiment is rather a good one because it allows time for interruptions, whereas unfortunately interruptions do not seem to be possible in the general short debates of two-and-a-half hours.
Before I close, I should like to remark on one or two things which are not covered by the group's report. I wonder whether I may put in a plea for restraint in dividing the House. Divisions, after all, take time—and are they all so necessary? Certainly we used to get along quite well without them, or with many fewer than we have now.
Secondly, the rule relating to Starred Questions and nationalised industries or public corporations seems to me not very well observed now. I recall, certainly just before the summer recess, some questions on the Post Office, for instance. Really and truly there is an underlying rationale about questions not being allowed on those industries. It is that Ministers should not be answerable for day to day questions on nationalised industries and public boards.
Exactly the same thing seems to me to apply to privatised industries. They have after all, by Acts of Parliament, been hived off from the Government, and I do not think that questions on privatised industries should be asked in this House because they tend to put the Minister in the position of answering for day to day matters on those industries, and that cannot be desirable. I am the last person to want to put restricitons on the House; but this seems to me a
1012
case which the Procedure Committee might examine. It is, after all, a comparatively new phenomenon, and I hope that they will have a look at it.
Thirdly, regarding appellations, guidance is very clearly set out in the revised brief guide on page 46. They show a proper description of Members of this House. They do not apply to those who are not Members of this House. I have frequently heard reference to the "right honourable and learned Foreign Secretary". He is not learned in our terms because he is not a Member of this House. Equally, I seem to remember Mr. Leon Brittan was referred to as a "right honourable and learned Member in another place". It is simply not in accordance with our customs. Those are small points.
I should like to end by referring to what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said about ad hoc Select Committees. I should like to see it made easier than it now is for a general matter to be sent to an ad hoc Committee. The House has produced some extremely valuable reports on general matters and should perhaps be encouraged to do so. I know that Select Committees are not popular with Ministers—least of all with civil servants—but now that there are in effect no Royal Commissions, and now that the CPRS no longer exists, the House of Lords is well placed to study those intractable problems which somehow must be solved, but there is no particular body to which to send them. In the relatively unpolitical atmosphere of the House, the Select Committee might be more profitably and more frequently used on general matters for the general good of the nation.
Finally, I know that I am not allowed to compliment the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, on his maiden speech, However, he paid this place an infinitely subtle compliment when he referred to the House as an infinitely subtle complement to another place. I am sure we all agree that one House of Commons is enough, and we do not want to ape their ways or duplicate their habits at all. The marvellous thing is that this House manages to recruit Members whose whole experience of parliamentary life, up to the time when they enter these walls, has been another place; and yet they subtly change and become converted and become famous Members of this House; and long may that remain!
4.55 p.m.
Lord Tranmire: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lords who formed the working group on the clarity and common sense of their recommendations. I pick out just two points, where I think the clarity is very important. First, one dealing with the revised guide, which is mentioned in paragraph 18 of the report. As one who served under successive Speakers and Chairmen of Ways and Means, for 45 years in the Commons, I found it very puzzling when I came here to try and enjoy the freedom and flexibility of self-regulation. But the longer I stay here, the more I am certain that it is a better procedure than that of the discipline of the Speaker. It will be a great help if the Procedure Committee are allowed to pursue this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, seems to think we can do it ourselves without their help. It would be a great thing, I think, if every Member each Session gets a revised copy of the guide. No doubt the

1013
guide can be continually revised. Moreover, all new Peers on introduction could be given a copy.
The other small point I want to raise is referred to in paragraph 31. That deals with the informal grouping of amendments. This is an arcane mystery at the present time. A few people in the know, know how amendments are grouped. It is not a determining factor, but it would be better if we could get the informal grouping on the Marshalled List. I appreciate that our normal arrangements would make that impossible in many cases. However, where a Committee stage is going to last longer than one day it would be possible for the Marshalled List to contain some information about informal groupings. It would be a help—particularly if the recommendations are adopted—if the desks in the Prince's Chamber and the Peers' Lobby had on them the lists of informal groupings. At the moment this is one of the weakest points in our procedure.
My main point is that I am a little disappointed that none of the recommendations made would have any great effect on the hours of sittings of the House. In the past 30 years the sittings of the House have increased from 484 hours in the Session 1955/56 to 1,160 in the latest year available, 1985/86. The chief reason for this is as follows. If you look at the work of this noble House, my Lords, you will find that the time spent on public Bill legislation has increased rapidly over the past 20 or 30 years. If it is likely to continue more self-regulatory rules will have to be made in order to avoid a total breakdown in our administrative system.
I was faced with that problem in the Commons during the 1970/71 Session of Parliament when I was chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure. That committee took a great deal of evidence and came to the conclusion, as indicated in its report, that the only way out of the difficulty was not to send all Bills to Standing Committees but to send non-controversial Bills to a Select Committee for examination, and in cases where a Bill was only slightly controversial or for the most part non-controversial, powers should be taken to divide the Bill and to send part of it to a Committee of the Whole House or a Standing Committee and part of it to a Select Committee.
In this House there is a Public Bill Committee which undertakes many of the procedures which my committee unanimously recommended should be adopted in the lower Chamber. Unfortunately the report containing those recommendations has never been implemented by the Commons. There was a good debate on it, which my noble friend the Leader of the House will remember. The case that something should be done was strongly supported by all Members of the Procedure Committee but nothing was done.
We in this House ought to be considering how we could introduce Select Committees to deal with all non-controversial Bills. On reading the report, I felt that too much reliance was placed on the test of the Pilotage Bill, because the argument is rather destroyed at paragraph 26, in which one reads that:
"the bill chosen was by no means uncontroversial".
1014
That was the whole object; namely, to extract the non-controversial Bills and have them discussed in, say, the Moses Room or somewhere convenient, so that the time of the House could then be used for other matters such as debates, which constitute one of our strongest functions, or for dealing with other legislation.
I have made the point. I hope that the test will be renewed on a Bill that is completely non-controversial. I hope also that the House will ensure that it has the power to send part of a Bill to a Public Bill Committee and part of it to a Committee of the Whole House. I am quite certain that we do not want to have Bills sent to Standing Committees of this House. As I saw it, Standing Committees were the weakest part of the procedure in the lower House. I do not want to see them here. I hope that we shall continue to have self-regulation and the rules. I think that it is far better that way and that we can rely on the Procedure Committee to endorse those recommendations.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I think that it would be a pity if this debate came and went without reference being made to some famous words of the late Lord Esher, although I think that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, paraphrased them. The late Lord Esher said that we should hesitate long before tinkering with an institution which we would never have had the intelligence to create for ourselves.
I have only a few points to make. To begin at the beginning, I wonder whether it is necessary for Hansard to print four times every day for ever the familiar words, "Lord So-and-So: I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper". I know that Hansard is meant to be more or less verbatim but many of the formal utterances are not printed. I very much doubt whether Hansard's report of the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill will contain over one hundred times the familiar words, spoken by the Deputy Chairman of Committees, Lord So-and-So: "Is it the Committee's wish that the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is withdrawn". Would it not be enough for Hansard simply to print the words, "Lord So-and-So asked the following Question…"?
As to Starred Questions, the other day there was one which went something like this: "Having regard to the decision in Regina v. Smith, will departmental circular No. 167 be withdrawn?" It may be that most of those noble Lords who were present had read that case in the Law Reports held in the Library, and others may have had in their hand a copy of the offending circular from the Printed Paper Office, but I rather doubt it. I think that noble Lords would be grateful for some inkling in advance of what a Starred Question was all about.
As regards Statements, I should like to join the noble Lords, Lord Diamond and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, as well as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, in expressing unease about the proposals concerning ministerial Statements. For instance, when there is a Statement which it cannot be said is urgent or important in the general scheme of things but which may he of great public interest—say, a Statement

1015
about whether we should have horseracing on Sundays—the media can inform the people about the opinions expressed on all sides of the House of Commons. However, the people will say, "We are accustomed to watching the House of Lords on television and we should like to know what the House of Lords thinks about it. Why don't we hear any opinions expressed about this matter? Is the House of Lords being muzzled? Are their Lordships indulging in some tremendous exercise of self-denial? What is happening?"
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, used the word "downgrade" and asked whether we were in danger of downgrading ourselves. As the late Lord Byers used to put it: So long as the House of Lords continues to exist, nothing must ever be done to give the impression that this House is in any sense a second-class Chamber.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? I should like to remind the noble Lord that Statements repeated in this House cannot be seen on television. That is part of our agreement on televising the House. His argument therefore does not apply.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, of course the noble Lord is absolutely right, as he is nearly every time, but the British people will not understand his point. They will not understand the refinements pertaining to a question having originated in one House rather than the other. The public will be mystified and surprised that on their television screens they do not see and hear what the House of Lords has to say about the matter which interests them deeply. I hope that that provides an answer.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I am sorry but in fact when Statements are repeated in this House, as they frequently are at present, the television cameras have to switch off. That is the rule. The public may be mystified, but people would be just as mystified if the Statement were not given.
Lord Airedale: I think, my Lords, that I had better continue and come to the matter of noble Lords who have to leave early, before the end of a debate. On this subject I think that I have detected a disagreement between two parts of the report. Paragraph 64(c) says:
"Peers who leave early cannot expect to be answered by the Minister".
With that I entirely and absolutely agree, but when we come to paragraph 114(u) it says this:
"That Peers who leave debates early should not be answered by the Minister".
I think that is too stringent.
Sometimes there are very good reasons why a noble Lord has to leave early. He may be an expert in the subject matter of the debate; he may have raised a question which is fundamental to the debate and those who remain at the end will be eager to hear the answer to the point that has been raised. I believe that the Minister should be entirely free, either to deal with the matter if the noble Lords present wish him to do so or, otherwise, to write to the noble Lord who is no longer able to be present. I feel that the report is not very helpful in that minor regard.
1016
Finally, I wish to mention this vexed question of congratulation of maiden speakers. In the Second Reading speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on the Sunday Sports Bill (at col. 1139 of the Official Report for 15th July) the noble Lord begins:
"My Lords, I refuse to be the only person addressing your Lordships' House who does not congratulate our two maiden speakers".
Quite so; but we must discipline ourselves in this regard. There is one matter which so far does not appear in the Brief Guide, and that is the custom which I think still obtains whereby the Minister answering the debate also congratulates the maiden speaker. If I am right, I think we may have a demonstration this evening that this custom is still maintained.
I should like to mention one other possibility. That is that sometimes a subsequent speaker may have a very special reason for congratulating a maiden speaker. He may be a lifelong friend; he may be a close relative. In those circumstances, I do not think he should feel inhibited by our rules of procedure from adding his congratulations, provided that he has a really special reason for so doing.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, indicated very clearly that what they were hoping for from this debate was to share minds so that they could make a decision as to what the next steps, flowing from it, would be. If it is that they are collecting voices, I should like to add my voice to that of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and claim that, in the interests of the House, to remove the chance of hearing ministerial Statements here would be a bad one. It would be a bad one from the point of view of the contributions that we can make upon matters arising out of them, and a bad one in affecting the status of the House in relation to it being part of Parliament.
I should also like to support the noble Lord's suggestion that we do not go too far down the road in restricting the length of speeches. It is perfectly true that in normal debate, in the normal way, 10 to 15 minutes is adequate—and perhaps more than adequate. There are, however, many occasions when matters of vital importance to the nation are under discussion, and we, fortunately, in this House have the advice of experts who, quite apart from their membership of this House, have a contribution to make which is quite invaluable. Therefore, to put them on those important occasions—and there are many—in a position where they would feel some embarrassment by giving us the full benefit of their knowledge and experience just because they may be infringing the rule as to the length of speeches, would be a bad thing. On those two issues I should like to add my voice to the—
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, would the noble Lord tell us how a Peer himself can decide if he is a great enough expert to speak for longer than the House allows?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I do not know; but we have views as to the value of speakers and the value of the contributions that they make. It may well be the attention we give to them when they are speaking would indicate to them that we are in no hurry for them to stop at 10 minutes, when they still have something worthwhile to say.
But in the report that the group has given—which has received congratulation from all sides—they have said virtually that rules and procedures do not need much amendment. Indeed, no fundamental alterations have been suggested by them. I am not surprised at that. Indeed, when the group was set up I could not see that there was any need for any great alteration to the rules and procedures and the general conventions which are accepted in this House; so the report seems to confirm that point of view.
However, having said that, we would not have set up the group, and it would not have been accepted, unless there was a feeling, some intuition, that something was wrong that could be remedied somewhere along the line. I do not think that the feeling that something ought to be done has anything to do with the rules and the procedures of the House, as laid down; but I think it has everything to do with the individual noble Lord who takes part.
I believe that there is a tendency to copy another place in a way which is undermining the real effectiveness of your Lordships' House. I believe that the improvements that could be made are improvements that we, as individual Members of this Chamber, can make for ourselves. For example, I do not think in the old days that everybody felt it necessary to repeat every good point that had already been made. There is no loss of face in withdrawing your name from the list of speakers because the points you think were worth making have already been made and are on the record. I do not think that at Committee stage, at Report stage and, even now, at Third Reading there is always the need to put down identical amendments.
The repetition of amendments all of which mean the same thing that take up time and interfere with the general smooth running of the House, could be remedied by a little self-restraint on the part of noble Lords. In order to face up to that, I approve very much of the suggestion of a brief resume of what the procedures are, being sent to the Members, particularly new entrants to your Lordships' Chamber, at the beginning of every year. I think that would minimise any inadvertent abuse. But what about the deliberate abuse? We have seen one or two indications that it is sometimes deliberate. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said, "Discreet murmurings from the general membership of the House should bring people to order." We have had too many instances over recent months where we have had something rather noisier than discreet murmurings; but it does not seem to have had any effect at all on the noble Lord who has been thought—as shown by those murmurings—to be breaching the general standard that we expect. So discreet murmurings alone leave much to be desired.
It is upon that that I should like to make a suggestion which I do not suppose will find favour everywhere. Our parliamentary system today,
1018
whether we like it or not, whether it is local government, whether it is in the other place or whether it is in your Lordships' House, is based upon parties. Parties play their part. That is what we mean when we talk about the usual channels. The usual channels in this sense means the governing party, which happens to be Conservative, in consultation with the Labour Party, which is the official Opposition, the Liberals and the Alliance, all of which are part of the parliamentary system—
Lord Somers: My Lords, may I suggest that that is only a weakness?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I did not hear that. I shall read it in Hansard and write a letter. Fortunately there is not much deliberate abuse, but when it seems to appear I believe that the party system comes into it in trying to deal with it. Each of the parties in this House, as in the other one, has its separate meetings and decides its view on how it will approach certain matters. I believe that they ought to make themselves responsible for helping the Leader of the House if they think that anybody in their group is abusing the procedures in some way. That is a line which would be very useful. It would avoid the suggestion that the Leader of the House, whoever he is, is making his intervention only because of some party difference. If the strength of the party grouping can be brought in to help the discipline, I am certain it will help in the running of the House and will help the Leader of the House on those occasions.
Finally, I hope that we will continue the existence of the Select Committees such as the European Select Committee. During the five years that I was a Member of the European Parliament what impressed me more than anything else was the high regard of every country that constituted part of the European Community for the reports of the House of Lords Select Committee on European matters. It was very high indeed. During those five years there was no other country and no other source upon which the appreciation of all nations so centred as it did upon the reports from this House. So I hope we shall continue to maintain the high reputation which that Select Committee has in its impact on the minds of the rest of the European Community.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I think that self-regulation requires occasional, and perhaps increasingly more frequent, self-examination. Self-regulation may also mean more regimentation, more rule of thumb. I doubt indeed whether it is self-regulation. It is communal regulation, which can become irksome and can change the nature of an institution as the noble Lord who has just spoken suggested. I am not going to argue the case for an office of chairman or Speaker, though I think it is very difficult to envisage many institutions in this country or anywhere else at the present time that can be effective and efficient without some authority in the chair.
I do not think we should be too slavish about tradition, the grand inheritance and other things which are noble sentiments. We are part of the

1019
legislature of a country which is striving to hold its own and to advance in the modern world, and we have to judge everything against what is required of an assembly: what are we to do and how well are we doing it? I shall return to that, because I have a bee buzzing in my bonnet that I want to get rid of at the outset and that is paragraph 103, dinner hour business.
I am a great sufferer from this growing practice of having an adjournment for the dinner hour and slotting in secondary business, non-contentious business, to be transacted by those who forgo the benefit of the dinner hour. My union says that if the workers are to be given a dinner hour, all the workers should have the dinner hour at the same time. Moreover, I get caught in this web of contrivance to do something during the dinner hour, because I am usually interested in agricultural orders, covering the space allotted to the battery hen and rules on the feeding of pigs and the keeping of sheep. Agricultural orders seem to come on during the dinner hour. I resent having to transact the business of this House to the sound of knives and forks in an adjoining room. Why should we transact the business of the nation during a period when the bulk of your Lordships' House is in a state of concentrated gluttony in a room down the corridor?
This is not becoming to the work that we do in your Lordships' House. Let us have a dinner hour. I think it is a very welcome break, often in dull and tedious proceedings. But let us all have it at the same time and come back refreshed. That is the first point.
The second point that I feel deeply about is Question Time. I have long given up putting down Questions for oral answer because I cannot bear to wait three or four weeks before I get the information that I want. What sort of information do we seek that we are willing to wait three or four weeks to get it and then just get a few supplementary questions and a slot on the television programme? I do not think that is any satisfaction to any noble Lord who is taking his business seriously.
But I think we ought to know more of these great scorers in the Question Time match. Who are the eight Lords who managed to ask one-third of the total Questions in a Session? Who is the noble Lord who put down 37 Questions in one Session? Surely there is some accolade that we can bestow upon them. Can we not summon them to the Bar, commend them on their diligence and say that without them we should sink into apathy and complacency? Surely we cannot let such commendable application to the task and work of the House go unnoticed and unrewarded. I do not know who they are but I can make one or two pretty good guesses.
Also, could we not agree that the Table should be able to advise noble Lords about the suitability of some of the Questions that are put down? For example, any noble Lord who asks the Government what they are doing to maintain the peace of the world should be advised not to put down the Question, because he ought to get, but he will not get, a short answer to a damn silly question. But there are silly Questions on the Order Paper of global
1020
significance. I shall not go into them. I have a few here that I could quote, but we all know what they are.
No Minister is prepared in answer to a Question in this House—as Ministers used to be, if they are not now, in the House of Commons—to get up and say, "No, Sir", and sit down, or, "That is another question. That does not arise from the Question you are asking". The trouble is that the courtesies and the tolerances of this House are positively stifling. We ought to be a little more brusque with people who are going over the bounds of self-regulation.
But it is obvious that the big debate that is going to come in due course will be on Statements, and I strongly support the recommendation of the Committee on this, though I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in his view. I ask your Lordships to bear in mind that when Statements are repeated in this House we are required to go into private session. The television cameras must go off. The public must not hear over the air what we say. It is a kind of closed shop for a time. That quite apart from anything else is a bit of a reflection upon us. Why is that? The simple answer is that those Statements are not made to us at all. They are made to another House and they should stay in that House. They are repeated here as a matter of courtesy and convenience. We are not asked to begin a debate on a Statement that is made in another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, made a valid point when he said that probably urgency should govern the repetition of a Statement in your Lordships' House. I would add to that matters which come clearly within the role of your Lordships' House. A number of matters that are subject to Statements in the House of Commons relate to the work that that House has to do.
I have now spoken for eight minutes. I hope that I may continue as I am trying very hard to finish my speech within 10 minutes. It will be quite painful but I shall try.
We might say that Statements should be repeated in this House not "rarely", as stated in paragraph 78 of the report, but only occasionally. "Rarely" is a very strong word to use in this connection. However, that is a matter for discussion. We shall obviously hear much more about it.
Finally, should we now give more attention to the role of your Lordships' House in the parliamentary system? I have been here for 13 years and I am rather unclear about the attitude of noble Lords as to the reasons why we are here and our role in the system. We are not just a rubber stamp for the other place. We are not a duplicate House of Commons. We have a distinctive role of our own. It is a little difficult to find that role having regard to the fact that we emerge from being battered over the years and from having our claws clipped and our wings torn out and submitted to other humiliations because Members in the other place thought that we had too much power and that we should put up with less.
But should we not be thinking now about removing some of the absurdities and anomalies about our role in the whole system? I regard our primary role as that of legislative revision. High on

1021
the list of our roles is the guardianship of the constitution, such as it is. Another important role is the protection and safeguarding of the liberties of the subject.
I do not begrudge any time that is necessary to give detailed consideration to a Bill similar to the Criminal Justice Bill. That is more our role than fiddling about with the greater benefits under the national insurance scheme. We can bankrupt the national insurance scheme but we are forbidden to talk about taxation. We deal with all kinds of things which are not our true role while matters concerning the liberties of the subject are inserted into Finance Bills, and therefore put outside the scope of our amendment. We allow the tax gatherer to bully the citizen behind our backs because the Parliament Act of 1911 excluded us from tampering with a Money Bill. Therefore the Government tack on to a money Bill all kinds of things about recovery which are vital questions concerning the liberty of the subject. That has taken me 11 minutes and now I shall sit down.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Taylor: My Lords, there have now been some 13 speeches, the lengths of which were 14 minutes for the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, then eight minutes, 10, 10, eight, nine, 15, eight, three, eight, nine and 12 minutes. Those speeches were just about the right length. They would not be at all improved by being any longer. It is much harder to make a good short speech than it is to make a long speech. Indeed most long speeches become extremely boring after a while no matter how expert and wonderful the speaker.
The person whose speeches I remember enjoying most was the late Lord Attlee who never spoke for more than 10 minutes in this House. His speeches were always succinct and to the point. A rule of 10 minutes per speech is a very good rule other than for the speeches of the opening and closing speakers. That is not an absolute rule but it is a very good one.
How are we to be told when we have reached our 10 minutes? A red light will not be all that useful as 10 per cent. of us are colour-blind. In fact we can land ourselves in trouble if we follow red lights when they are not red. The only certain signal which will penetrate to the speaker who is in full flow is an auditory signal. I do not suggest that we ring a dinner hell. However, I well remember when I was a young house officer at St. Thomas's that there used to be a single bell sound. It made a ting sound. My sound was ting-ting followed by ting-ting-ting—a sequence of two tings followed by three tings for a senior house physician. Just such a simple signal at the end of eight, nine and 10 minutes would be quite enough to slow us up and it would be a jolly sight more effective than lights. If a light turns red we cannot stop however much we may want to.
I wish to direct the attention of noble Lords to the excellent quality of the report we are discussing. It is a real beauty. It is as good as any scientific paper. I also draw noble Lords' attention to the typography, the paper on which the report is printed, its size and kind. If only all our Select Committees and other committees produced such reports they would do a
1022
great deal more good. The reports might cost a little more to produce but they would be read.
We produced a first-class report on occupational health services which got absolutely nowhere. But when we saw how it was printed it was not surprising. The report that we are discussing shows how the other report should have been printed. The report is also extremely good in the way that the tables are presented. I have only one slight criticism of the tables. They give percentages of time rather than hours of time. It would be a little better if they gave both but the arguments and the presentation in general are first class.
I personally favour five or six parliamentary Questions. I know how irritating they are sometimes to the Leader of the House. I have seen him become so irritated and kerfuffled because the time is being taken up and he knows that two frightful Statements are coming. I cannot blame him for that but it would be fun to have six Questions because they wake us up after lunch and we need waking up.
The other interesting matter is what happens when Questions are over. If the debate to follow is not very interesting there is a wonderful flight of the innocents from the Chamber. I do not know where they fly to but they all disappear very quickly.
I remember once when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, was Minister of Science. I asked him whether, as my supplementary question was rather long, I could with permission circulate it in the Official Report. He nearly blew his top and told me that only the Government were allowed to circulate anything the the Official Report.
It occurs to me that if noble Lords have points which they cannot fit into their short speeches it might be considered whether they could place a small note or an appendix in the Official Report to the effect that that was what they wanted to argue. I cannot guarantee that it would be worth reading but they may not insert it when they have considered the matter. I cannot see that that procedure would do a lot of harm.
My last question concerns the loom of youth. One of the glorious things about your Lordships' House is the part played by younger Peers. That depends on the hereditary system. I believe in that system. I think that it is right and proper that our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren may be compelled to perform certain duties in the service of their country. I favour the choice for life Peers as to whether they should be hereditary or non-hereditary. It should be rather interesting to see how many of those who object to hereditary peerages accept them.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, I feel that I have a contribution to make to the debate in a technical sense of crossing one or two "t"s. First, let me deal with the problem of Friday and Monday sittings. Nowhere does the report draw attention to the difficulties of Peers who live at great distances. Monday is a most awkward day to get to work here for those who live 500 miles away. As I am now a widower, it does not affect me. But I think it is bad luck on wives, who sometimes find husbands leaving

1023
for a Monday sitting on Sunday night and not returning until the following Friday. I wonder whether it is worth considering giving more time to business on Fridays, despite what is said in paragraph 107. I should prefer to sit late on a Friday rather than come to the House on a Monday. There is also the problem of buying tickets, booking seats and reserving a room, which makes it advisable to be able to plan fairly far ahead.
One point which was not mentioned in the report and which has not been mentioned so far in the debate is the question of the cost of fares for wives who draw a place at the ceremony of the opening of Parliament. It is all very well if one lives in Eaton Square and the missus draws a place. But if one lives in Sutherland, shall we say, it is an enormous expense to bring a wife down without an allowance from the state. The other place provides very liberal allowances for wives. Perhaps that is worth considering in this House.
My next point concerns paragraph 112 and the names of Peers who are taking the Oath and the like. The Clerk has a clear voice and good diction; one hears him very well, as we heard him today. However, when many Peers take the Oath it is impossible to hear them even with the hearing aid. I wonder whether it would be technically possible to tinker with the microphone above the Box so that it can be made louder when a Peer is taking the Oath. It generally happens that there is a great deal of movement at the time when such Peers come forward. Perhaps the volume of the system could be improved. Otherwise, I do not know how we can persuade Peers to raise their voices.
My next point concerns paragraph 114, which deals with Questions for Written Answer. I believe that these are being abused. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, mentioned their drafting. I wonder whether those at the Table are satisfied that they have enough power to trim the Questions so that they are of importance or put forward to obtain information. That is the object of such Questions, rather than to allow someone to expound a political theory, as seems to be the case with some of the Questions for Written Answers.
I do not believe that the system of Unstarred Questions is working properly. We had an example last week when my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing rose to ask an Unstarred Question at a quarter-past eight o'clock, just as the cameramen were covering up their cameras. A very interesting and important debate followed. The previous debates of the day had also been important. However, that Unstarred Question was of urgent importance and it was not relayed by the cameras. Perhaps the question of availability of time for Back-Benchers who have the occasional Unstarred Question could be reconsidered. I say it in that way because it seems to me that many of the Questions for Written Answer arise from the frustration which some Back-Benchers feel over not being able to get a word in edgewise over some bee they have in their bonnet.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, who spoke earlier, mentioned the matter of a debate on the Motion, That the noble Lord be no
1024
longer heard. I believe I am right in saying that that matter is debatable. That is another complexity in this method of trimming which may be resorted to. It is worth consideration in dealing with the matters with which we are all concerned.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Sherfield: My Lords, since I have been associated with the Select Committees on the European Communities and on Science and Technology for a number of years, I rise briefly to make a comment on the group's recommendations in that area and to enlarge on what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said at the beginning of the debate.
The most significant point about those two Select Committees is that they are run on a shoestring. A single Clerk with a secretary is solely responsible for the organisation of an inquiry. He has some back-up in case of need from the Clerk of Committees, who, however, has multifarious other duties. The Committee Clerk also usually has help from one or more specialist advisers. However, their role is entirely advisory and they cannot be asked to undertake administrative tasks.
Moreover, the Committee Clerk is responsible for drafting the report. That involves not only the administrative task of handling large volumes of evidence but also that of mastering and absorbing them. Given the restrictions on manpower, the appointment of additional Clerks of the House clearly raises difficult issues. I suggest that the House might adopt a system already in force in another place of appointing specialist assistants to committees. These persons are normally postdoctoral university graduates who are employed for fixed contracts for a term of two years in the case of the other place, renewable for another two years, and provide specialist expertise and day-to-day assistance with the preparation of papers and the analysis of evidence.
In the case of the House of Lords where the Select Committee inquiries typically take from eight months to one year, a one-year contract to a postdoctoral researcher might prove attractive. I note that this suggestion has been referred to the staff sub-committee. I hope I can have an assurance that this referral is not equivalent to a decent burial.
What a Committee Clerk in this House really needs is someone who can research secondary sources and work on parts of the evidence, and who is also available to hold the fort if the Clerk falls sick or is otherwise temporarily put out of action. If the assistant can help with the writing of the report, that is a bonus.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, mentioned the Congress of the United States. The last time I was on the Hill, its Committee on Science and Technology had a staff of over 100, equivalent to about half, I think, of the entire staff of this House, including the legal staff. The United States' Committee can also call on the resources of the scientific service of the Library of Congress and of the Office of Technology Assessment. In this context the present request for one or two temporary junior assistants does not seem outrageous.

1025
What I am suggesting for the Select Committee on Science and Technology would, I believe, be equally applicable to the European Communities Committee, although I personally no longer have a connection with that body. I certainly agree with the view that there can be no increase in the number of ad hoc Select Committees unless additional Clerks are available. One ad hoc committee at a time appears to be the most that can be contemplated.
Before I sit down I should like to welcome the Recommendations of the committee on Statements and on the timing of debates on Select Committee reports. I have suffered much from sitting late on many an occasion discussing reports which have been the work of many months with an attendance in single figures.
5.53 p.m.
Viscount Rochdale: My Lords, I have ventured to put my name down on the list of speakers even though it is an extremely long one. The reason is that having taken part in the work of your Lordships' House for over 40 years—I think I am only behind the noble Earl, Lord Longford, in that respect—I believe I have learned some lessons which may be of help to your Lordships in this debate.
I made my maiden speech in February 1946 in Her Majesty's Robing Room. Incidentally, I spoke then from the Cross-Benches. Since 1946 there have been an enormous number of changes but the really big difference which has been mentioned over and over again today, and which to my mind is most important, is the enormous increase in the workload of the House. I think one can illustrate that well by recalling that in those days we never sat more than Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said, it was not a question of stopping for dinner—we hardly ever got to dinner. We stopped at about 8 o'clock. Those few comments indicate the extent to which the workload has inexorably increased. It is against that background that I look at this report.
Like every other noble Lord, I welcome this debate and congratulate those who have produced this really first-class report. It is excellent. We should congratulate both the Members of the Committee and the clerks not only on producing the report but on doing so in what has been a relatively short time. I also pay tribute to what my noble friend Lord Whitelaw said about the importance of statistics. I regard these as very important not only for our consideration at the moment but also for the future. Study of them will help us to see how trends are moving.
Our objective is quite simple. Given the present composition of the House and the nature and volume of the workload that has to be disposed of—a workload that, despite the sincere undertakings of every Government to see that it is reduced, has always increasedߞwe should see that we make full use of the immense volume of experience and expertise available to us. Therefore our procedure must ensure that the work flows through smoothly, and with as little interruption as possible.
1026
I believe it has largely been due to our present system of flexible self-regulation that the growing workload over all those years has been acceptable and taken on by the House. The report itself says in paragraph 113 that the House has been able to handle the intense strains-those are the report's words-of the last Session.
I like very much what the report says in paragraphs 12 to 16 about self-regulation. If there were any form of control by a Speaker, sooner or later that could only result in rigidity and the slowing down of the work. That does emphasise the importance of paragraph 115 in the report, which states:
"Our freedom of debate and system of self-regulation can only continue…if we as Members of the House are willing to regard our liberty as a trust".
That brings me to the point of how we can preserve that. It raises the importance of the Brief Guide. I am sure it is important to new Peers and to those who have been in the House for some time. I often find that I have either forgotten or been unaware of some important point of custom or procedure. If we had this new Brief Guide I believe that would bring a great deal of good. I hope that it will be printed so it is easily readable.
I have only two points of detail to which I wish to refer. I can be particularly brief about the first because it is a point that practically every speaker in your Lordships' House has referred to today. That is the timing of Statements, which can be extraordinarily irritating for somebody who is about to speak in a debate and who then finds that the continuity and flow of the discussion stops because a Statement is going to be made.
I realise that there are two points of view about whether Statements should be made orally. When I read the report on this point I asked myself, "What exactly is the interpretation to be put on the `exceptional case' and what does it mean?" There, I feel we must be as flexible as possible. I believe that there are some Statements which could usefully be dropped, but that there are a great many more which it could be dangerous to lose.
My other point is one to which the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, referred—the place on our Order Paper of reports from Select Committees. Very often they come at the end of the day, and the report suggests that Standing Order No. 38 should be adjusted to allow such reports to be taken early in the business of the House. Of course, the importance of these reports varies greatly. They involve a great deal of work by Peers, their advisers and also—the point I want to make-members of the public and organisations both here and abroad who come to give evidence. They take an enormous amount of trouble preparing written documents of evidence and they come to give evidence orally. If they see the result of their efforts put in a report which is eventually tucked away for debate at the end of the day, it must reduce the credibility and importance of those reports, which are, after all, your Lordships' reports.
I give one example of the importance which people from overseas sometimes place on coming here to give evidence. Four years ago I was chairman of one of the sub-committees dealing with policy towards competition in shipping. On this particular day we

1027
had witnesses from Hamburg, Germany and from Paris, France, and a very eminent shipowner from Norway. It so happened that this gentleman was on holiday in Miami but he thought it sufficiently important to break his holiday to come and give evidence to us and then return immediately to Miami. If foreigners accord that amount of weight to our work, then we should respond by giving it the same degree of importance and have these reports debated early in the day.
That is all I want to say. I welcome this report. I believe it is very timely and I think we should congratulate everyone who has played a part in producing it. I have enjoyed and learnt a lot from the speeches of the other noble Lords who have spoken.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity of participating in this debate. When I put my name down on the list yesterday to take part in the debate I realised that a lot of people with a wealth of experience and suggestions would be participating. I, too, congratulate the committee and the clerks because we are greatly indebted to the servants of the House for the work that they do. I have been here for eight years and realise how much we owe the people who serve us so well and who are so generous in giving their time and experience, especially to help new Members.
No one will stop me, as a Member of this House, from congratulating someone if I feel they are worthy of congratulations. I believe that it would be impertinent of anyone to suggest in any orders that a Peer should not congratulate another Peer on a maiden speech, whether or not it is custom. It is worthwhile recognising that point. I congratulate Members on both sides if they have a point to make. I most sincerely congratulate my noble friend Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe on his maiden speech.
I did not realise when I put my name down to speak that I would be 20th on the batting list. Of course, that means many of the points that I was going to make have already been made. Therefore, I am not going to repeat those. Often in debates of this nature, where a noble Lord has prepared a speech but is 25th, 20th or whatever on the list, regardless of how many times the point has been made, he will still repeat it. Much time could be saved if speakers would say, "All my points have been made and therefore I say no more". I look forward to what the Procedure Committee has to say when it has studied all the suggestions that have been made, and that I would have made had I been number two or three in the batting order this afternoon.
6.5 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am among those who are glad that the report did not suggest having a Speaker in your Lordships' House. That would be quite disastrous and alter the whole character of the place. It would encourage endless points of order, as it does in the other place. Therefore, I am glad that that was not proposed.
The report says that there is nothing wrong with the rules of the House, only the way in which we use
1028
them or abuse them. It is true that there are more people in the House than ever before and more working Peers. I am not so sure that I like the distinction or the insinuation but it is a fact that if one creates more Peers and they are told they have to work it is not surprising that the procedures get into a muddle. That does not mean to say that the rules are wrong. The whole glory of your Lordships' House is that we are masters of our own procedures. That should be so and it is up to us to protect and control them. I suggest that it is up to us not to be selfish.
The length of speeches is considered by everyone to be too long other than, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said, one's own. I approve of the suggestion that the aim for the length of a speech should be 15 minutes; but that should be a target and not a limit because it would be wrong to have too much rigidity. It is better to have flexibility even if occasionally a noble Lord errs on the wrong side.
I remember a speech of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. It was not the speech that he made today, but one he made no fewer than 22 years ago. I remember every word of it. It was during a debate on the shortness of speeches. The noble Lord said, "As everything I intended to say has already been said I shall now resume my seat". It was a masterly speech.
It is not surprising that over the years we have tried to find ways of curtailing the length of speeches of noble Lords. I considered the idea of coloured lights that changed from green to red, was rather effective; but, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said, as 10 per cent. of your Lordships are colour blind, it would not have any effect and it would be much better to have a little bell that went, "ping ping". I could not help but think that if 10 per cent. of your Lordships are colour blind, and 20 per cent. deaf, then how one curtails a deaf noble Lord in full flood by going, "ping ping" is hard to imagine! But at least we ought to give this suggestion a try.
When the noble Lord said that, it recalled to my mind a suggestion made by my noble friend the Chief Whip some years ago when he was in a less exalted position than he now is. He suggested that next to the digital clocks there ought to be a little instrument out of which a cuckoo would come at the appropriate time and make an appropriate noise. He also suggested that a specific sum should be deducted from your Lordships' expenses for any speeches that went over a specified time and that that would have a suitably curtailing effect. One would be indecorous, the other inappropriate and both would be undesirable but at least we have perpetually to try to find ways of curtailing speeches. The answer is that one has to be unselfish.
The real abuse of this House comes at Question Time. Supplementary questions are too long and frequently read. Ministerial Answers are frequently far too long and by being so not only do they extend Question Time but Ministers also expose themselves to replies and give time to other noble Lords to think up possible supplementaries.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said that he wished people could answer quite shortly. I remember an occasion when Lord Fraser of

1029
Lonsdale, who was sitting in the position just behind the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, got up to ask a Question. Lord Bowles was speaking from this Bench and gave the Answer, "No, my Lords". That succinct Answer was so unusual that the whole House roared with laughter. Lord Fraser got up and asked, "Why not?", and the House again roared with laughter. The point is that the Question and Answer were much more succinct and much more interesting.
While on the point about Questions and Answers, there was an occasion about three weeks ago when one noble Lord asked three supplementary questions in a row and read them all. The Minister answered more lengthily than was anticipated and the answers were read too. There is a requirement for both Questions and Answers to be short and not to be read.
One tends to think that it is up to the Leader of the House to control the House, but of course he cannot. It is up to the House to control the House. The Leader of the House, if I may say so with the greatest respect, should he backed up not only by Back-Benchers on both sides but also by Front-Benchers on the other side when he tries to suggest that we move on.
I had the curious experience of being catapulted from a lowly position into having to act as Leader of your Lordships' House when the late Lord Soames was Governor of Rhodesia. It was a tricky matter to decide when you should intervene. If you get up too early people complain that you are spoiling the sport. If you leave it too long people get fed up. I suggested on one occasion that it might be to the convenience of your Lordships if we moved on to the next Question. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, getting up and saying, "Why is it that the noble Earl should think that it is to the convenience of the House that we move on'? It is not to the convenience of the House at all. I want to ask another question". It is very difficult to get the balance right. The point is that it is not just up to the Leader of the House. It ought to be up to noble Lords on all sides of the House, Back-Benchers and Front-Benchers, to take the initiative and to back up the Leader when he speaks on behalf of the whole House.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am sorry that I have only just come in but I must raise this point. What do people mean when they say that it is up to everybody to intervene? Do they really visualise a state of affairs in which a Back-Bencher or a Front-Bencher pops up and says, "I think this man has gone on too long"? It would be chaos, in my opinion.
Earl Ferrers: Yes, my Lords, but you can always call "Order!", or you can say "Question" or "Speech"; and if the noble Lord goes on too long it is always possible to get up and ask the Leader of the House whether he does not think that the noble Lord opposite is abusing the procedures. So there are a variety of ways in which this can be done.
On the question of procedure, I think it is essential that we remember only to speak once on Report. The Report stage is not another Committee stage. That is frequently forgotten. It is also wrong to put down amendments for Report which have already been put
1030
down in another form or in a similar form at Committee stage. A short while ago an amendment was put down-there were not many people in the Chamber-and the noble Lord who put it down said, "I should have liked to divide the House but as there are not many noble Lords here this evening I shall not do so. However, I shall put down the amendment again on Report". That is an abuse of the procedures of the House. Likewise, the idea of Third Reading becoming another Committee or Report stage is obviously wrong.
On Statements I feel a great sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. It would be a pity if Statements were not repeated, and if they were to be only a rarity that would be a pity too. They are part of the political life of the country. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, Statements are made to Parliament and not to one House. This matter is under scrutiny not because of the Statements but because of the way we abuse Statements. If the Opposition Benches could curtail themselves to making a comment and asking a question for elucidation and Back-Benchers to asking a question for elucidation, Statements would be dealt with more quickly.
The report is highly useful. I do not think we should have a report every year and perpetually look at ourselves and wonder what is going on. That would make us too introspective and would waste time. But in the end it is up to us not to be selfish and to ensure that the rules, which after all have lasted many years, should continue because they are perfectly all right.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I intend to follow the lead of the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, and confine my remarks to the workings of Select Committees. The report of the group notes:
"Many members of the House thought that the existing Select Committees … are working satisfactorily, and believed that they are well regarded outside the House".
I cannot speak for the European Communities Committee but I have been involved with the Science and Technology Committee. It is known to me that its reports are well regarded. The most recent example is the report of the sub-committee on civil research and development chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, which has had considerable influence, especially on the Government. That is a remarkable achievement considering, as the noble Lord mentioned, the staffing that supports the work.
In the case of the Science and Technology Committee we operate under two constraints, which have the effect of reinforcing each other. The first, which is self-imposed, is that the topic should be examined and dealt with in not more than 12 months. The second is that the staff back-up is limited, as has been explained, to a Clerk and a technical adviser. I am sure that the 12-month timetable is absolutely right. Without it there would be a great danger of drift and of losing the impetus of the subject. However, it is a tight timetable, which with the staffing constraint gives us very little flexibility. One might add that one is talking about the quantity of

1031
staff rather than the quality. I would be the first to acknowledge how well served we are by our Clerks and by our technical advisers. Be that as it, may, we have little room for manoeuvre for the things that might go wrong or for the unexpected developments.
These twin constraints of timetable and staffing mean that the committees receive very little back-up. The noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, gave some examples and I shall give some too. Given the tight timetable, it would be particularly helpful in the early stages of our work when members need to be brought up to speed as fast as possible if we could have background papers on the subject we are investigating. It is also important at the later stages to have position papers and analyses of the issues as they have emerged from the evidence sessions so as to develop our thinking on the thrust and conclusions of our report.
I very much welcome the suggestion which the group endorsed that we should try out the idea of specialist assistance to the sub-committees. The objection will be made that this will mean more public expenditure. I have a suggestion on that point to which I shall come in a moment, but leaving that aside, goodness knows our demands are modest enough in all conscience and the remuneration of our often very distinguished technical advisers amounts to little more than an honorarium. I think we trespass rather considerably and indeed perhaps dangerously on their good will.
By any normal standards for inquiries such as these—I spend most of my life doing investigative inquiries of one kind or another—we operate with very little back-up and run on a knife edge. As a result, we are not as effective as we could be. This results at times in unreasonable burdens being placed on members of a committee and more particularly on its chairman. We end up having to do much too much devilling on our own, which for busy people is not a very efficient way of proceeding. All things considered, I think it is remarkable what we manage to do.
I come to my suggestion. If money is the objection to more staffing, perhaps we should explore the possibility of seeking the secondment or sponsorship of a special assistant from industry or commerce. This might be a young man in his late twenties or early thirties who would work for a committee for 12 months. In my experience it is frequently the case that at that stage in a person's career not only is he ready for a change but he can gain considerably from such a change, which is useful for his own development. For that matter, it is often useful for the company concerned to take a person out of his environment and give him a change for a few years. He comes back a rather more developed person. I think that we should explore and experiment with this idea. It would make a great difference to the effectiveness of a committee and at very little cost.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I congratulate the working group on the excellence of its report.
On looking through the membership of the group, I was pleased to note that so far as I could see not one of them in my time in the House had ever offended
1032
against the letter or the spirit of any of the Standing Orders. The members were therefore in a unique position to appreciate the defects of which some of us from time to time are guilty.
I support strongly the recommendations in regard to EC debates and the work of Select Committees, which were touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, and other noble Lords.
In 1979 the House spent only 32 hours discussing the reports of Select Committees of the House. In 1986 again only 32 hours were spent on such discussions. In view of the importance of the subjects covered by the Select Committee on the European Communities, it is clear that we should pay much more attention to the committee reports and give them much more time for discussion in the House.
Many noble Lords have mentioned that the reports of the Select Committee on the European Communities are held in high regard throughout Europe. I am of the opinion, without wishing to express any particular preference, that they may be more highly regarded—perhaps for different reasons—than those of Select Committees of another place, although I do not wish to cast any aspersion on the nature and content of those reports.
Since the passing of the Single European Act in particular, what has been done and contemplated in Europe is of enormous importance to the United Kingdom. I respectfully suggest that, given our reputation already in this respect, thanks to Select Committees on the subject, we should give much greater prominence to their reports in regard not only to the time of day at which the debates are held but also to the number that come before the House for discussion.
That leads to the question of Statements. I am sorry to have to disagree—and it is rarely that I would so disagree on a non-party matter—with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, on a House procedural question. The recommendations of the group seem to me to make sense. I have mentioned that in 1986 we spent 32 hours discussing important EC reports. I should mention also that in 1986 we spent 45 hours on Statements. On the basis of the statistics quoted in the group's report, allotting to each working day 7.18 hours, approximately six working days were spent on Statements in the House.
Other noble Lords may disagree with me, but I do not take it as an affront to your Lordships' House if a Statement made in another place is not repeated here provided that we have a way of knowing about it. By the nature of the construction of Parliament, there are many more Ministers in the other placeߞMinisters in the Cabinet, Ministers in charge of departments—than there are here. Where a department has a Minister in the other place, it is natural that the Statement and subsequent party exchanges should be made in the Chamber of the other place and answered by the department chief, who would be thoroughly familiar with the subject matter of the Statement.
The situation would be different if the Cabinet Minister were a Member of this House. A Statement by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, on a

1033
subject for which he has ministerial responsibilities clearly should be made here and should be the subject of comment here. I would expect any Statement made on behalf of the Government in this House by the noble Viscount who is Leader of the House and Deputy Prime Minister to be made here without questions upon it. In that way we could save a great deal of time. I do not think that it is an affront to this House if a Statement is not repeated here. Nor do I think that our dignity requires it. After all, we have other realms of dignity better perhaps than those in another place.
Question Time has been mentioned. I venture to suggest that we in this House, for all our defects, conduct ourselves at Question Time in a slightly more agreeable if less humorous manner than do Members of another place.
I have one final observation in support of the noble Lords, Lord Henderson of Brompton, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Harmar-Nicholls. I agree that we ought not to start having coloured lights here. I think it is a little unnecessary for reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was good enough to mention in a different context.
When a speaker is addressing the House in controversial terms—controversy is not yet banned in the House of Lords—it is customary for him to attract interruption and, as is the custom in the other place, invariably one gives way. It can so happen that the speaker, if he becomes extremely controversial—Heaven forfend that he should—may he interrupted, quite properly, on two occasions. That would mean that some five minutes out of his 15 minutes is taken up. I do not think that it is necessary for the preservation of self-discipline to have these extra measures which have been mentioned in the report and which appear in the draft of the proposed amendments to the Standing Orders. Nor do I think it a good thing that Members of your Lordships' House may be licensed by the rules to say, "Too long, too long". We have other ways of making our feelings known without resorting to formal words which are in effect half legalised by their appearance in the Standing Orders. Those are the three suggestions I have to make.
My noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby has been here some six months longer than I have. He expressed some degree of doubt about the purposes and role of your Lordships' House. Of one thing I am certain, that one of the principal roles of your Lordships' House, in which I am very proud to participate, is that of being the second forum in the United Kingdom in which matters of public importance are discussed. We should never forget that role, in addition to that of a revising Chamber. We should all be very pleased to do our best to continue to maintain its reputation.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, I begin with an apology and a compliment: the apology from myself and the compliment to the authors of the report. I apologise for taking part in this debate having regard to the short period for which I have been in this
1034
House. I would only plead in mitigation that I have perhaps some knowledge of parliamentary procedures having sat during 11 Parliaments in the other House and for six years in the European Parliament.
Although sincere, my compliment does not embrace a totality of endorsement of the conclusions of the group. Nevertheless, my congratulations to the group are unqualified with regard to the dedication that has gone into the making of this report and with regard to the industry, the skill and the clarity of its draftsmanship. It covers a very wide area. In the classic words of Mr. Wackford Squeers, but with considerably more accuracy, "Here's richness", and with so rich a diet there is imposed on those who take part in the debate difficult questions of selection of a theme.
I propose to confine my observations to questions 6 and 3, ministerial Statements and the Public Bill Committees, with which I shall deal very shortly, and the main question of self-regulation, with which, for reasons that will appear, I shall have to deal at a little more length although I trust not wearisomely so.
On ministerial Statements, I welcome the recommendation in paragraph 78 of the report. I respect the views of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter with his exceptional knowledge of procedure and I take his constitutional point. Nevertheless, the basic consideration here is the degree of disruption to which the present practice exposes the business of this House. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, nodding acquiescence to that proposition. There is a major difference between the timing of Statements here and in the other House. There they are timed to suit the convenience of business—normally between Questions and business-and therefore have no disruptive effect on the business of the House. As your Lordships know, here it is far otherwise. I therefore welcome the removal of this major factor in the disruption of the House. I only wish that the group had gone the whole hog and, having appreciated the logic of the position, had abolished the dinner hour as well.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Hear, hear!
Lord Broxbourne: I am very glad to hear that my noble friend endorses that suggestion. However, at paragraph 103 the report rejects that possibility. I can understand a certain reluctance. "The dinner hour", "Adjournment during pleasure", what agreeable Trollopean evocations those words bring out. One has visions of the Duke of Omnium being driven to his London mansion or his club to enjoy the delights of Victorian gastronomy. If noble Lords want an indication of what those delights were let them read the description in Disraeli's Reminiscences of the dinner which Lord Palmerston ate by himself. After the delights of Victorian gastronomy noble Lords then returned to the House, or not as the case might be.
On the Public Bill Committees I need say very little indeed. I was an advocate of this in the last Parliament before the experimental setting up of the committee for the Pilotage Bill. I entirely endorse

1035
what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, and I am grateful to him for mentioning me in this context. I welcome both the endorsement of a role for the Public Bill Committee and the procedural improvements suggested for further study by the Procedure Committee, notably the possibility of sittings in the mornings in order not to clash with the business of the House and better arrangements for Divisions.
I come to the main matter, self-regulation. Here we were asked to express a preference either for continuance of self-regulation or for a speakership with controlling powers. Paragraph 13 of the report states:
"The case for a Speaker with controlling powers received virtually no support and was argued by only one Peer"—
I can visualise the corridors of Westminster buzzing with speculation as to the identity of this lone heretic. Who, they may have asked, was this Ishmaelite, this iconoclastic figure? Let there be a truce to surmise and speculation. I should not wish the finger of suspicion to be pointed at any innocent Peer. I make a clean breast of it. It was I, Broxbourne, who put forward this unacceptable proposition. The report continues,
"who believed it less surprising that the system was flawed than that it worked at all".
Where the draftsman got the word "flawed" from we may hear when the reply is made to this debate. It certainly did not come into my representations.
It is of course permissible, and no doubt sensible, to improve on my prose, but to improve on Dr. Johnson is presumptuous indeed, and noble Lords will recognise the derivation of this expression:
"A woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all".
For the avoidance of doubt let me hasten to say that I do not for a moment endorse Dr. Johnson's view on women preaching. He would not say that today and indeed he would be in a great deal of trouble if he did. He certainly would not say it if, like your Lordships, he had the advantage of hearing in debate in this House the contributions of noble Baronesses with all their eloquence and elegance, their cogency and their charm.
But there is an underlying proposition which in Dr. Johnson's phrase would have a bottom of good sense and it is this. There are certain things and activities for which there is a natural and normal way of doing them. It does not mean that it is impossible to do them in any other way but it is unlikely that the other way will be as good. That proposition is reflected in the workings of this House.
In the workings of any parliamentary or deliberative assembly, the natural and normal way is for procedure to be regulated by a chairman or president (we call him a Speaker) who is able with the expert advice he receives—I associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, said as to the expertise of the advice here of the ever helpful Clerks at the Table—to interpret the rules and to ensure compliance therewith. That is the ordinary and accepted way of doing it the world over, and always has been.
1036
Before this report was produced I ventured to suggest that a case study be made to show what the procedures were in other assemblies in Europe, in the Commonwealth and in the United States. Was it done? There is no evidence, no mention in the report, nothing in the voluminous appendices to the report, so we must assume that in fact it was not done.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, to whose speech I listened with customary respect and attention, that our procedure is unique. I even go so far as to associate myself with his description of it as being "odd", though perhaps that is unnecessarily disrespectful. Unique I think it is. It does not follow that it is wrong, but it puts the onus on those who seek to justify it. What the report says is:
"The introduction of a Speakership with powers would encourage time-wasting points of order, worsen conduct, and curtail the ancient liberties of the House".
Not a scintilla of evidence is adduced to support that amazing and unqualified proposition. The veriest tyro at the Bar would take a pronouncement like that as crying out for particularisation, interrogatories and all the salutary processes of cross-examination. Of course, those things it has not received.
I do not believe that those are the concomitants of speakership, neither the usual concomitants nor, still less, the inevitable or necessary concomitants. I have some knowledge of Speakers in another place. The noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, once observed, when Mr. Speaker Thomas, that I had made more speeches proposing and seconding the election of Speakers than he had preached Methodist sermons. He was too nice and too modest to say, as was undoubtedly the fact, that the sermons were much better than the speeches. Nevertheless it has given me experience of speakership.
I see the noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, in her place. I sat in the House of Commons originally under the distinguished speakership of her eminent father, Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown, and later under that of her eminent spouse, Harry Hylton-Foster. I do not recall that any of six Speakers were unable to regulate the proceedings in that House. without these catastrophic consequences ensuing. Of course the atmosphere was not quite like the atmosphere of this place. Some would say it was more lively and that that was not necessarily a bad thing, but at any rate they were able to keep order within the hounds of regulation.
Of course there are problems. The report acknowledges problems but does not attempt to analyse or assess the problems regarding the trichotomic position, if that is the right expression—I see my noble friend looking at me with all his great classical learning—of the Lord Chancellor. I ventured to suggest some possible solutions to this problem. These suggestions received no analysis and no attention in the report and so I leave it there. I shall not canvass them here, because the concept is rejected in the report, but I hope that they will be borne in mind for another day.
Meanwhile I concede that here I have lost the case: not a wholly unfamiliar experience for anybody who practised at the Bar as long as I did. What is unusual is to lose the case without right of appeal and without even the right of audience to make oral submissions

1037
as to the merits of the argument and to test the evidence for the other case. I can only console myself with the classic lines victrix causa Diis placuit, sed victa Catoni. I got it right, I think. Do not let your Lordships think for a moment that I am identifying with Cato; I should not dream of being so presumptuous. I only recite the lines to show that minorities, even minorities of one, are not always or necessarily wrong.
I said a moment ago, "No appeal". There is one court of appeal and that is history. We shall await the judgment of history on this, which may well be that on this day we missed an opportunity to improve the procedures of the House. So let me conclude with this. Some of your Lordships may feel that I am unduly influenced by the practices and procedures of the other place. It could be so-that other House which I knew so long, loved so well and sought to serve a little. But I would not wish your Lordships to think that I do not know that there are cherished traditions and practices in this House which are well worthy of respect. For my part I would wish to observe any procedures and play any modest part I can in them whatever they may be. I am grateful, as a minority spokesman, for the kindness and attention with which your Lordships have been good enough to listen to me.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the eminent persons' report that we are debating has met with universal praise this afternoon, although I think probably few of its recommendations have been unanimously welcomed. The most difficult matter seems likely to be the treatment of repeated Statements, and I should not like to guess now as to which view is likely to prevail in the end, or if indeed a third one along the lines proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, might be feasible.
Like others, I think that the informal group are much to be congratulated on having produced a careful and wise report. The report finds in favour of various objectives, many of them old favourites—shorter speeches, less time on Starred Questions, fewer repeated Commons Statements—but these are not sought to be achieved by any means other than voluntary means.
The objective of shorter speeches is to be attempted by the clock, which is apparently to be turned like a traffic light from green to red, presumably by a clerk at the Table working from a set of tariffs—so many minutes for an opening or winding-up speaker, so many minutes for a Front-Bench speaker, and so many minutes for a Back-Bench speaker.
In this case the onus for self-restraint will be in the first place on the speaker who, it is hoped, will be shamed by the sight of the red clock into sitting down early, and secondly on his listeners who are assumed to be emboldened by the sight of the clock into reminding the speaker that he should sit down if he has not done so voluntarily.
In the case of Starred Questions, where the objective is to limit Question Time to 30 minutes at most, the onus is to be with the Leader of the House or his deputies, although, as my noble friend Lord
1038
Ferrers has said, the Leader of the House cannot do this without support from other quarters. In the case of the proposal for repeated Commons Statements the onus is placed on the Opposition parties, for Statements would continue to be offered to Opposition parties with the presumption, in the words of the report, that they would not be delivered orally but would be printed in Hansard. So self-regulation involves a contribution, as proposed, from all of us.
The report proposes an annual review of how procedure is getting along in this House, which in these changing times is a sensible provision. I do not think that the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, need apply. I also support the proposal to reduce the number of Starred Questions in the name of any single noble Lord from three to two in order to give more scope to those Peers who make less frequent use of this facility.
Increased politicisation has been commented on as a new and growing feature in this House.
In one peripheral respect the report attacks politicisation in its controversial proposal to remove the automatic repetition of Commons Statements. The answers to the questionnaire reveal a broad antipathy to repeated Statements. Why should this be so? The principal—although by no means the only—supporters of automatically repeated Statements seem to be Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. That seems to me to be natural. After all it is they who are given an opportunity for a free tilt at government at this time. But Back-Benchers, on the whole, do not either widely attend or widely participate in reported Statements.
I think that on the whole noble Lords—the silent, suffering majority, in the words of the report—have no great affection for topicality. If, by coincidence, a Starred Question turns out to be topical, noble Lords will wholeheartedly enter into the spirit of the occasion. But Statements are sprung at short notice. It seems to me that noble Lords usually prefer to plan their political activity. Statements also disrupt other business. My noble friend Lord Broxbourne has just shown vividly how they are much more of a disruption in this House than they are in the other place.
Like others here I was a Member of the European Parliament, which had, for someone coming from this House, an excessive, even overwhelming love of topicality. Not a day passed without a flood of applications for business to be rearranged in order that politcal battle could be engaged on some resolution impetuously introduced on some recent event, usually in some distant part of the world. Everyone was kept at a high and exhausting level of alertness. But Peers, the silent majority, I presume to observe, do not for the most part like to live every minute with their senses all keenly attuned to detect shifts and to sense opportunities in the political breeze.
They cultivate—they are encouraged to cultivate—a more reflective, well-pondered contribution to political life. Consequently my sympathies are with those who resent the interruption and postponement of the principal

1039
business to please what is often a vociferous but small minority. I would therefore support the proposals to turn the repeated Statements into the exception rather than the rule, and for them to be taken at the least disruptive moment.
However, a nettle which the informal group in their report did not grasp was the question of committees. The report repeats a complaint made by some noble Lords—echoed this afternoon by the noble Lords, Lord Shackleton and Lord Henderson of Brompton—that there are too few ad hoc committees, and also the complaint that the present system displays a tendency towards too great a concentration on European affairs.
At the same time the report notes that the present permanent structure of our committees restricts the capacity of the House to set up ad hoc committees on subjects which deserve examination because neither the Members nor, more particularly, the staff are available. The report does not suggest any solution to this. In fact, it says very little on the subject.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, says that the European Communities Committee is run on a shoestring it is nevertheless the case that a considerable proportion of the resources of this House are devoted to servicing the permanent Select Committees. Leaving aside Members' time, I am informed that no less than one third of the staff of the administrative offices of this House are exclusively devoted to servicing the Select Committees.
That is fine if that is what the House as a whole wants, but is it what the House wants and should we not find out if it is still what the House wants? Without in any way wishing to cast any aspersions at all on the dedicated work of the assiduous Members and staff of those committees, or on the value of the work that they have done, nevertheless it is a common occurrence to find that Select Committee reports are being debated in this House in front of little more than the Members of the sub-committee concerned. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, and my noble friend Lord Rochdale both complained about the fact that the House was not interested enough in the reports of their committees. It seems to me that that provides a prima facie case for a review of our existing permanent committee structure to see whether, in its entirety, it still corresponds to the demands of the changed circumstances so as to justify the resources required by it. If the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, is right, maybe we are trying to do too much already with too few resources.
In conclusion, the report serves most usefully to remind us of the remarkable freedoms which we have in this House. We have the freedom to introduce any Bill; propose any amendment; ask any question; make any speech. Those freedoms are available equally to each one of us. This liberal system is inevitably put at risk by the pressures arising from ever greater numbers of so-called working Peers, a greater volume of legislation and, consequently, ever greater politicisation. The system will be particularly tested by the strains of a legislative programme such
1040
as the present Session offers. The report puts it well when it states:
"Self-regulation imposes a responsibility on each individual Member to act in accordance not only with the rules but with the spirit and tradition underlining them".
Ultimately, the whole delicate and intricate system can be maintained only by the willing participation of all parties; Government, Opposition and Back-Benchers. Surely the value of the report and the debate is that they probe for the common ground between the different parties. I have every confidence that sufficient common ground will be found to enable this House and its cherished procedures to survive unscathed and buffetings to which they are exposed today.
7.2 p.m.
The Marquess of Salisbury: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for their kind remarks about my father.
I hope that your Lordships will be delighted to hear that I shall be brief. I intervene on only one point. Most of the debate has concentrated on the need for self-restraint leading to efficient self-regulation. No doubt that is important but I suggest that it is only part of what needs to be done. The real problem is the growth of government legislation. When one reads the report, one sees that an increasingly greater percentage of time is spent considering government Bills. I suggest that we are nearing the point of becoming a revising Chamber and nothing more. That seems to me to be undesirable, because one of the major contributions provided by your Lordships' House is the admirable general debates by means of which we have played such a notable part in Parliament.
One asks oneself whether there is any possibility of improving the situation. The simple answer is to have less government legislation, but I suppose that that is unlikely. Indeed, the more government legislation there is the more it seems to increase. Perhaps there are two ways in which the Government could help without interfering with their programme. First, would it not be possible in a normal Session—the point does not apply during this Session—to have more Bills coming to this House at the beginning of the Session? That would reduce the pressure on your Lordships' time at the end of the summer period. Very often we have little business to transact in the autumn.
Secondly, it appears that a number of Bills which come before the House have not been well prepared. It seems to me to be due to pressure on the draftsmen, who are, no doubt, just as good now as they were in the past but who have had to produce more Bills than they can comfortably digest. This means that a considerable amount of your Lordships' time is spent in what could be said to be unnecessarily revising Bills which should have been properly thought out in the first place. We had a good example of that on Monday of this week when amendment after amendment was moved and the Government agreed to take them all away for further consideration. It was quite clear that matters had not been properly thought out.

1041
I support the general report of the group. I hope that as the House—and particularly the Back-Bench Members—has been asked to exercise restraint, the Leader will be able to tell us that the Government will play their part in trying to make our business more acceptable.
7.6 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I agree with everything which has been said by the noble Marquess. To some extent he has raised new issues in this debate, because we have spent much time discussing how we should approach our own responsibilities as Members of this House without considering the role of government. I propose to deal with that issue during the course of my remarks.
In opening the debate, the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, reminded us why it was that a group of our colleagues had been asked to look at these issues. He said that last year we had had an arduous session. If I may say so, that is something of an English understatement. As we all remember, there were substantial complaints from all quarters of the House about the hours that we had been forced to endure in considering a number of measures from the House of Commons all of which arrived remarkably late.
During the 13 years for which I have been a Member of this House I have had the benefit of listening to four of five other rows with different Leaders of the House when exactly the same complaint has been made. Unhappily, despite that, we do not appear to have improved our procedures and our general approach to the consideration of legislation. For instance, I remember the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, as Leader of the Opposition. complaining bitterly about the behaviour of the then Labour Government in sending to this House so much legislation so late. He said that the House would not put up with it any more. There were then no references to individual responsibilities of Members of this House. I was then a Minister and I agreed with everything he said.
First, I think that we should recognise, as did the noble Marquess, that, although we have our responsibilities as Members of this House, so have the Government. They also have a part to play in easing our burden in a House which is still essentially an institution of part-timers. So I shall divide my remarks into those two main categories.
Dealing first with our responsibilities as Members of this House, I agree with the committee and the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, that we should rely on self-regulation. I heard the speech of the lone dissentient, the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, but I am afraid that he did not persuade me that it would be sensible to move in his direction. I suspect that that is the overwhelming view of this House. I also believe that we should have shorter speeches. I am not sure about the red light. If I may put it as politely as possible, those who are some of our more insensitive colleagues in relation to the length of their speeches will not be deterred by a red light. Indeed, were we to invite the massed bands of the Brigade of Guards to strike up, I suspect that that would have just as little effect.
Next I am afraid that I disagree with the committee and agree with the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-
1042
Carpenter and Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and my noble friend Lord Diamond on the question of the repetition of Government Statements and Statements on Private Notice Questions asked in the House of Commons. I do not want to go over the arguments again as they have been set out clearly. I believe that it would diminish the role of this House were we to accept such a formula. I believe that it would also sharply diminish the rights of all opposition parties both now and in the future.
We can all become bored when a Statement interrupts business in which we are interested, but what about yesterday's two Statements? Which of those would have been delivered in this House if the formula of the committee had been adopted? Should we have had the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, repeating an extremely important Statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House of Commons or should we have had the extremely important statement on electricity prices with all its very substantial political and economic implications? I do not know the answer to that question and I suspect nobody else does either.
Next, I very much agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, the noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, and my noble friend Lord Diamond on the question of Public Bill Committees on government Bills. I think that they can save time, and I am not impressed by the argument that the experience of the Pilotage Bill proves anything at all. I think we should certainly repeat that experiment.
I must remind the House that during the lifetime of the Labour Government a Betting and Gaming Bill did in fact go through just such a Public Bill Committee. It had as Members a number of eminent experts on this area of social policy, including the then Bishop of London and the late Lord Wigg. I believe that the members of that Committee, the Government and, I suspect, the House itself gained from that experience.
Next, if I may be a conservative on this question, I am afraid that I am a strong supporter of the dinner hour. I believe that it is one of our more civilised practices and, as one of the veterans of the seven days of the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill, the idea of going without dinner for seven evenings, though no doubt highly advantageous in other respects, does seem to me slightly unreasonable.
Now I will, if I may, turn to the position of the Government in this matter. First, again, I agree with my noble friend Lord Diamond that there is a great deal to be said, in terms of the management of Government business, for setting aside time on a contingency basis, so that Government legislation which has to be introduced speedily because of some substantial expression of public disquiet may be brought in without adding to an already overloaded programme. A good example of this is the Firearms Bill which is soon to be introduced in the House of Commons by the Home Secretary following the tragedy of Hungerford. But we can think of plenty of other examples of exactly the same thing arising in the past.
Secondly, I should like if I may to raise a rather more fundamental point. This is a matter which has

1043
already been touched upon by the noble Marquess who has just resumed his seat. There is simply far, far too much government legislation. That is true now, was true in the past when I was a Minister, and no doubt will be true in the future. Not only is there far too much of it, but some of the Bills introduced into already overloaded programmes are much too long in themselves.
As an example, I now should like to direct the attention of the House and the noble Viscount to the Bill to which we have so far devoted seven days—the Criminal Justice Bill. It contains 139 clauses; 11 schedules, and a substantial number of major new issues have been tabled in the form of Government amendments. This Bill in fact is five separate Bills. It is an extradition Bill; it is a criminal proceedings Bill; it is a penal affairs Bill; it is a criminal injuries compensation Bill and it is a juries Bill. We all, unhappily, know what happens when a department gets a place in a legislative programme. It shoves into the Bill in question every possible proposition that it can lay its hands on, many of which will have been waiting around for a very substantial period of time.
All I would say to the noble Viscount is that in terms of the responsibility he carries, as an important member of Cabinet Committees, I very much hope he will look into the possibility of repeating the experiments of the past when Leaders of the House of Commons have on occasion rationed departments to a specific number of clauses. This happened to me on a Home Office Bill when the Home Office was told it had 50 clauses and no more.
I repeat, I do not think it is reasonable to give us a Bill of 137 clauses, and then give us just 13 days between Committee stage and Report stage for the massive issues which are going to have to be considered by both Home Office officials and Ministers, and by Members of this House before we come to Report stage. I can of course understand the complaint expressed in civilised terms, if I may say so, by the Government Chief Whip last Thursday, when he said that we were making not quite so much progress on the Bill as he would have liked but I would only point out to him that, as I have said this evening, if we are going to have massive Bills of this kind, the Government must reconcile themselves to very lengthy Committee and Report stages. I repeat, too, that, if we are going to have Bills as long as this, we need more than 13 days between Committee stage and Report stage.
We have still had no answer from the Government on the question—which was raised through the usual channels—of a possible meeting concerning the issue of extradition. I brought up this matter with the noble Lord last Thursday evening, as he will recall, but silence still reigns. I hope this will now be looked at as a matter of urgency.
Finally, my Lords, there is one issue which was not dealt with in the terms of reference of this particular group of our colleagues but which I believe is worthy of serious consideration. It may well be that it could be sent on to another committee of Members of this House. We are having, as we all know, more and more legislation pushed in front of us. We are also having more and more representations made to us by
1044
outside organisations—a point which is dealt with in the report which we are now debating. We are having to have more and more meetings with interested bodies in this House. Yet the accommodation for Members of this House is still in scandalously short supply. All I do hope is—and I put this in the most delicate way—that we are going to have a look at a situation in which over 60 officials of a government department have offices in the Palace of Westminster which, in my opinion, should be made available to junior Ministers, whose accommodation is appallingly inadequate, and also to other Members of the House. I think that does deserve attention and I very much hope that the noble Viscount will look into it as early as possible.
With that, all I can say is that we should like to express again on behalf of the whole of the House our gratitude to all those who have been involved in the extremely important work of this committee. We thank them all for applying themselves with such energy to these matters and for having produced such an extremely readable report.
7.19 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, both the noble Viscount and the Chairman of Committees in introducing this report emphasised that it did not suggest any fundamental change in our procedures but rather a gradual evolution of them. They re-emphasised the importance of self-regulation and that we should continue to enjoy the privilege of unrestricted debate. Indeed with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, there has been unanimous agreement with this point.
I should first of all like to add my congratulations to those which others have already given to the members of the working group and those who supported them for such a useful, interesting and fact-filled report. I think we are all very grateful to them for that.
The underlying point is that our procedures work well owing to the good sense and self-discipline of Members of the House. My own feeling is that there is no point in laying down in our procedures, or indeed in law in general, any matter which is so restrictive that it becomes unenforceable. Indeed, the working group admitted as much when it recognised that the suggestion made some two or three years ago that there should be only a single point in each supplementary question at Question Time was too restrictive and not enforceable. It therefore suggested that not more than two points should be contained in supplementary questions.
I shall not move on to the wider field entered by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, which is a major matter for debate. Rather I shall address myself to some of the specific issues that have been raised in the debate today.
The topicality of Starred Questions is one point. That does not seem to me to be a major problem because it has always been possible for Peers who wish to ask a very topical Question to go to a colleague and ask, "Will you switch your non-topical Question with my topical Question so that I can get it on earlier and you can have a later date?". I have

1045
found fellow Peers always very helpful in such matters. Indeed very often it has been possible to have a topical Question put on the Order Paper in that way.
The working party put forward a suggestion that the number of Questions on the Order Paper from any one Peer at any one time should be reduced from three to two. That is obviously a possible way of dealing with the problem. Another way would be to restrict a Peer to a single Question on the Order Paper on any one day and to retain three Questions. There are in fact ways in which Questions of some topicality can be organised and we can ensure that topical matters can be debated.
Statements caused a considerable amount of debate. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, was absolutely opposed to the recommendations in the report and rightly said that each issue ought to be decided on its merit. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, brought up a very interesting point about the two Statements that were made yesterday, which highlighted one of the problems. Your Lordships may have thought that the Chancellor's Autumn Statement was the most important of the two, but all the news coverage last night and today centred on the Statement about electricity prices.
When the Opposition are offered a Statement the difficulty is to know what is in it. One may be told that it is a Statement of no consequence at all. One then asks oneself why, if it is a Statement of no consequence at all, it is being made at all. I can recall some years back being told that a certain Statement was of no consequence and I agreed not to have it. It concerned the appointment of Mr. MacGregor as Chairman of British Steel at some fantastic salary, with an additional honorarium built in. The next day I had a red face. That is part of the difficulty about Statements.
Another point is that both the number of Statements made in the House of Commons and the number of PNQs have dramatically increased over the past five years. The total number rose from 86 in 1980–81 to 152 in 1985–86. Over that time the Statements that we had as a proportion of those figures changed very little. It would help us considerably if the Government made fewer Statements, because we would then not have quite so many in this House.
Length of speeches can be a problem. Noble Lords have been fairly good today; very few speakers have taken longer than 15 minutes and most have spoken for only 10 minutes. However, the length of speeches causes a problem and results in discourtesies inflicted on the House as a whole by Members leaving early. I have always thought that the five-hour debate, which was introduced a few years ago, is very useful because it enables speakers to know when it will finish.
The other week one or two noble Lords left before the end of a debate. I know that one of them did not apologise for leaving early. He looked at the number of speakers on the list and calculated that the debate would be over by about 8.30 p.m. In fact it went on until 10 o'clock but he could not offer an apology in his speech because he was unaware that it would last so long.
1046
The length of speeches raises difficulties and I think that time-limited debates can be a useful procedure. If they were a regular feature of our Wednesday debates, I am sure that it would be to the benefit of the House as a whole. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will not agree with me on that point.
As regards maiden speakers, there is a situation which, although it has not occurred today, has happened twice recently to my certain knowledge. There is a tradition in this House that no Peer leaves the Chamber while a speaker is making his maiden speech. It is a very good tradition. On two occasions, one fairly recent and the other not so far distant, one of your Lordships has shouted, "Order, order" in the middle of a maiden speech. It was quite proper to do so, but the unfortunate maiden speaker did not know what he was doing wrong and was completely put off his stroke by looking round to see in what way he had offended. I hope that such things can be done a little more quietly in future.
As for congratulations offered to maiden speakers, to some extent I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. On the other hand, I must say that this is a matter that cannot be considered as absolute and I agree in that with the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. I have a very special reason for wanting to congratulate my noble friend Lord Cocks on his most excellent and enjoyable speech. He has been my colleague for many years and plays his part in organising the usual channels. I should like to record my congratulations to him on his maiden speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was the only Peer who asked why we do not sit early when, as today, there are two introductions into the House. I have been waging for some time a little campaign to urge that we should always sit regularly at 2.30 and not at an earlier time. Noble Lords work to a routine pattern of coming to the Chamber at 2.30 and if perchance the House should meet at 2.15, most of them will nonetheless turn up at half-past two. The result is that the first Peer to be introduced faces an almost empty House, since no one comes along until 2.30.
My noble friend Lady Llewelyn-Davies, who I very much regret cannot be here today, often complained that nobody read the Whip that she issued and therefore it was important to advise Members verbally. She is absolutely right. People do not read the Order Paper and so do not know that the House will sit at 2.15 rather than at 2.30; that is a good reason for sticking to the time of 2.30 p.m.
On the subject of Unstarred Questions and the timing of the second Unstarred Question to be not after 8 p.m., we ought to look again at that point. It seems slightly ludicrous to say that a second Unstarred Question cannot start after 8 p.m. but that a first can start at 9 p.m. or 10 p.m.
I am conscious that I have now been speaking for 11 minutes but there is one further very important matter that I should like to raise; namely, the role of the Leader of the House. Several noble Lords have referred to his very important and difficult task in determining the will of the House. As the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said—and I very much agree with him—the Leader is likely to be criticised equally if he

1047
comes in too soon or if he comes in too late. I think it is always better to be a trifle too late than a trifle too early. Certainly on those occasions when there has been a case of a noble Lord not self-disciplining himself, the Opposition will, as always, give full support to the Leader of the House in the exercise of his duties.
I should like to add personally that we all know we are very well served by the present Leader of the House in this matter. Again and again he has managed sensitively to judge the mood of the House and we have supported him.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, raised the problem of a substitute Leader. There is of course a well-known hierarchy as to who is the substitute Leader at any point of time during the day, depending on who is actually sitting on the Government Front Bench at that particular time. There have been problems which have arisen when a fairly new and junior Whip has suddenly been faced with an unexpected situation. I appreciate that it is not possible to cover every eventuality, but I think that it is important that there is an experienced Whip on the Bench at most times, particularly at times when there is likely to be some point of tension arising on the Floor of the House.
As many noble Lords have said, this is a useful report; and I think the debate has been useful too, if for nothing else than to make Peers very much aware of what the procedures of the House are. I think it is useful for this to happen from time to time.
7.32 p.m.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I think that I have listened to every speech in this debate with considerable interest, except for one: one that I think I would have admired the most had I not, for what perhaps might be described as good reasons, slipped out of the House for a moment, and that was the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn. He said that as other people had made the points he was going to make, he was not going to say any more. How could I have asked for a better speech to have missed?
I am going I think to please the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, because I rather agree with him. I do not think I would feel right if I had not expressed my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe. After all, I am also—although it is a long time ago and was in another place—yet another of the wicked Whips of both parties in both Houses. We are, because of the nature of our calling, very inclined to be a close community; but we have to be in order to stand against all those people who want to criticise us from time to time. If we were not, I do not think we would have survived so long as we have in both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, if I were not able to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, I should feel very upset. So if I am going to break some rule that everybody is very keen to introduce, then I have started the right way to do it. However, the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, made a most amusing and interesting speech and we shall obviously be delighted to hear a great deal more from him. No doubt we shall do so, not the least because he has been under a long period of silence in another place.
1048
The first point I come to is the question of self-regulation and the duties of the Leader of your Lordships' House in the procedures that we have at the moment. It would be right if I started by saying that one must always, even if one has become convinced of a particular course—as indeed I have done about self-regulation—pay great attention to those who have not. Therefore, I listened with great care to my noble friend Lord Broxbourne who, having come from another place, like I have, has decided in a contrary way to me about the proposal. The fact that he is in the minority of one in this debate, and also in a minority of one in the reports that were sent to the group, does not mean that he should not express himself as forcefully as he has.
He said we would be judged by history. That is extremely nice, is it not? I do not know how I am going to be judged in history. I do not quite know what is going to happen to me when that judgment comes. I doubt whether I shall be able to observe it; know about it; or whether, indeed, I shall be able to do so in the company of the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne. Whether we shall be divided on proper reasons, I cannot tell. Nevertheless, perhaps we should continue, if we have the chance, to take the same views. I am extremely grateful to two of my predecessors in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for the kind support that they have given to the procedures, and indeed to the way in which I try to exercise them at the present time.
I am also very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, for some very generous personal remarks which, whether they are justified or not, are all the more welcome. The great thing about kind remarks is that they are always much more welcome when they are not justified than perhaps when they are. In this case, I am extremely grateful to him.
I do take on board some of the criticisms. I should like to say a word about them, and a word about what I try to do in what I believe to be the service of your Lordships' House. I once expressed a view, when very new to the job, saying that I thought something. I always remember—and I am sure he will not mind my repeating it—the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, saying to me, "You were quite right, but if only you had said: 'That is what the House wants' and not 'I' wanted it". He said then I would have commanded much greater support and assent. Ever since then whenever I feel like saying "I", I can always see the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and I know I must not do it, and I will not; if I do, it will be totally by mistake.
There is, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, with his experience of the time when he occupied this role, a very difficult balance to be achieved. The House as a whole should recognise—as I know my predecessors do—that one of the problems which I believe are created, and certainly have to be faced, by the Leader of the House is as follows. When does he intervene? If he intervenes too soon, then he will become regarded as too quick. I noticed in another context, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said that he observed my impatience sometimes during Question Time. The great thing that all my friends have known

1049
for many years is that I have never been able to disguise my feelings for one single second; my feelings are seen all over my face at all times. Therefore, if the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has seen them, so have a great many other people over the years. I have to agree that sometimes I do feel irritated at the length of time that Question Time is taking I feel irritated at all sorts of things from time to time; but that is true of that.
However, what I do feel is this. If I, as Leader of your Lordships' House, get it wrong, I hope I would be understood if I said I would far sooner—as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said—get it wrong by being late than get it wrong by being early. If I am early in trying to change or stop something, the danger is that I will be thought to be early by the Opposition Front Bench. I rely on their support, and am extremely grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Ponsonby, for all the support that they have always given me—and, indeed, to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and the other parties as well.
It means that I have to earn that support, because if I act too soon they will support me but they will rightly come to me afterwards—and I would expect them to do so—and say, "Don't expect us to go along with you always if you do it as quickly as that, and cut off the wrong person at the wrong time". Nothing is more disastrous than cutting off the wrong person at the wrong time—the person who has something to say and who ought to be allowed to say it. It is awfully easy to do it and to get it wrong. That may be a slightly cowardly way of going about it—I do not think that "cowardly" is quite the right word—but I think, on balance, it is safety that I should like, because if I am to serve the House I have to take as many people as possible along with me when I make that intervention. I think that my predecessors would agree with me.
I now turn to a short reference to the group's recommendation about the Brief Guide. On the whole, this seems to me to be very much supported. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, my noble friend Lord Nugent, the noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, and the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, all said that they thought it would be very valuable and with their considerable experience of your Lordships' House I believe that that is a strong recommendation for it. I am extremely grateful to the group for that proposal. We shall certainly seek to carry it forward.
I turn now to legislation. The group's proposals on your Lordships' legislative work are modest and I hope that they will be useful. However, first I must meet the charges or rather the points made by my noble friend Lord Salisbury and indeed by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. They are not strictly relevant to the group's report and therefore I must not spend too long on them. But they are relevant to the work of your Lordships' House and they are relevant to my work as the Leader of your Lordships' House and I think I owe an answer to some of those points.
First, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, about the contingency arrangement, the truth is that every government—and this has certainly been so for all the time that I have been trying to wrestle with this
1050
problem in government—always have a contingency for legislation written in at the start. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, as an ex-Chief Secretary, will know that all Chief Secretaries have always written in a contingency reserve and somehow before very long the contingency reserve is eaten up. That is true of the contingency reserve on legislation.
Why has it been eaten up in this Session? I must say that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, answered the point out of his own mouth. The firearms legislation is a classic case. There is a tremendous demand from everyone that there must be firearms legislation at the earliest possible moment—why are the Government dragging their feet? I must say to those who say that they cannot ride both horses. They can try, because a lot of people like riding two horses at once. But they must not be allowed to do it, because if the argument is that you must do it at once, you can be quite certain that the Bill that is then produced will not be properly prepared and thought out and will have to be substantially amended when it comes to Parliament. So the truth is that getting the balance right in legislation is extremely difficult and I wish it was easy to have a contingency and keep it.
I now come to the Criminal Justice Bill to which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has referred. He said that much has been added to it. Yes, my Lords. As I understand it, some of the provisions that are already included are not particularly liked by some of your Lordships, but many of those that have been added are liked by your Lordships; for instance, the legislation on knives which your Lordships regard as valuable and important and many of the other measures that have come into that Bill.
It is interesting that when I was Home Secretary five or six years ago there was another Criminal Justice Bill. So if the Home Office are stuffing things into this Criminal Justice Bill, they have a great precedent for doing so, because they did it five or six years ago, though not as much because I tried to stop it then, as my right honourable friend the present Home Secretary is trying not to do more now. But as the noble Lord will know very well, once you have a Criminal Justice Bill there are so many things that so many people genuinely want to put into it. That is the problem with a Criminal Justice Bill. These are all excuses, I know, for a failure to control the Government's legislative programme. I plead guilty to that.
There is another reason that I should like to put forward. It is true that when there is a large majority in another place, inevitably the mood of a government is, "Why can we not do more legislation?" It is much easier to do the legislation in another place if you have a large majority on a Standing Committee upstairs. It is quite easy to get a Bill through a Standing Committee. I have, in my time, tried to take Bills through a Standing Committee with a majority of one, but when you have a majority of five or six it is very easy and you do not worry.
If there is the possibility of a guillotine, anyway, after a period of time—and, rightly or wrongly, the other place has made the whole procedure of guillotines very much easier than it was previously; it has done so quite deliberately and it was agreed, I

1051
think, on all sides—that means that it is easier to get a Bill through. If I consistently say that it is far too big a programme to get a Bill through, I have to convince people always on the basis of the work of your Lordships' House, and there comes a moment when it is a difficult argument to produce.
Those are some of the things that happen. In the same way, it happens that there are many more representations made, inevitably, from outside, because there is more pressure. Hope always springs eternal, as I know, and the hope is that it may be possible to defeat the Government in the House of Lords, when it will manifestly not be possible to do so in another place. So all these factors have led to more pressure on our legislative time.
I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Salisbury that this year the argument about starting Bills here, which has often been relevant in the past, is not relevant. We are taking the Criminal Justice Bill now. We are already starting four Bills, some of them pretty major, in your Lordships' House—a very rare occurrence. I wish I could believe, looking at the Government's legislative programme, that that will necessarily mean that it will be easier in June and July next year. I would be a very rash man, knowing the composition of some of the Bills that are coming from another place, to make any such assertion. But at least it will not be because we did not have major Bills at the beginning of the session.
I do not think that I shall enter into the question of the dinner hour. When I came to this House I thought it was an odd procedure, but I never dared suggest to the Chief Whip that it was an odd procedure. So I just decided it was one of those things I must accept as something that always happens in the House of Lords and until today I have never thought about it, one way or the other. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and my noble friend Lord Broxbourne want to abolish it; the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, does not want to take other business in the middle of it and, on the whole, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, wants to abolish it, too.
Noble Lords: No.
Viscount Whitelaw: He wants to keep it? I am sorry, I clearly got that quite wrong. I do not know the answer to this point and I leave it very happily in the hands of the two Chief Whips. But I have to say to your Lordships that if the Government could not put other business into the dinner hour it would clog up the legislation still further. So if there is to be a dinner hour, I think it is necessary to have some other business inserted in that place. That is how it happens. I have learned to be a good boy and believe that is right.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, raised the question of the Pilotage Bill; we ought to have a non-controversial Bill and the Pilotage Bill was too controversial. He is probably right, but there is a problem about a non-controversial Bill. A non-controversial Bill is that very Bill which never takes any time, anyway, when it is on the Floor of the House. So, by definition, it certainly does not save any time if you send it up to a Standing Committee.
1052
That is the problem, I am afraid, and I do not think there is very much of a way around it—
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, may I interrupt? Perhaps I should say a "mildly controversial Bill".
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I heard the Chief Whip make a point which I shall repeat—I am not sure that it was a very good one. It was that we thought that the Pilotage Bill was a mildly controversial one.
Lord Shackleton: You were wrong.
Viscount Whitelaw: That is why it was not a good point! On Questions and debates, obviously, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said, we must try to keep Question Time brisk, varied and topical. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, raised the very important question of our treatment of privatised industries at Question Time. Perhaps I could study that further and ask the Procedure Committee to look into it. I take the point about the duty of Ministers not to answer more than two questions and to keep their remarks brief, as in particular my noble friend Lord Ferrers and the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said. I know that is right. That is a very understandable fault on the part of Ministers. I constantly stress to them that it is very understandable. They feel that they should give information because this House, unlike another place, wants to get information. The other place never wanted information at Question Time; but this House does want information. Consequently Ministers feel that they should give information. I notice from time to time, if Ministers do not give sufficient information, that noble Lords get up and ask why a Minister has not answered a second point. They say that they wish to have a perfectly good answer to a simple question, and that it has not been given.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, that I long for the day when I can find a Question to which I may be able to give an answer of, "No, sir". If I can find such a Question, I shall take it away from whichever Minister it concerns in order to answer it in those terms and to see what happens when I have done that. The Minister concerned may not like it, but we could try it. It is a good principle.
We want to try to make Answers as quick as we can, and we shall certainly do that; but I ask noble Lords to understand that Ministers in giving information are seeking to serve the House. It is difficult to tell them what they must do because then noble Lords complain that Ministers never give any information. We must try to achieve a balance in this matter.
As regards debates, we have the problem of the red light. The Clock was installed in 1971. The best thing to say about the red light at this moment is that it clearly is a matter which needs some further consideration. It should be given that through the usual channels. I should like to discuss that matter with the Leaders of the other parties before I put a paper forward to the Procedure Committee. It is one of those issues with which it is probably wise to

1053
proceed somewhat slowly in view of certain differences of opinion that may arise. The Clock seems to be a success; I am very worried about it at the moment. But I am not sure about the red light. I should have got on very badly with the red light.
I have a long list of noble Lords who have spoken regarding the matter of Statements. Those noble Lords who were for the findings of the report were: the noble Earl, Lord Perth, the noble Lords, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, Lord Henderson of Brompton, Lord Bruce of Donington, Lord Broxbourne and the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale. Those against it were the noble Lords, Lord Diamond, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, Lord Airedale, Lord Ferrier, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and Lord Harris of Greenwich. The position on that matter is pretty divided. I believe again that it is right to proceed cautiously and slowly. Some of the problems that could be faced when dealing with this were mentioned. We must face those problems together and see if we can come forward with some reasonably acceptable proposal.
Lastly, I come to the important comments about Select Committees which were made by the noble Lords, Lord Shackleton, Lord Sherfield, Lord Chorley, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, and, on a slightly different point, by the noble Lord, Lord Reay. The argument was put forward that Select Committees operate on a shoestring. There was also a point made about having more ad hoc Select Committees. I should like to consider both those problems and see what we can produce. I wish to assure the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that the question of specialist assistance has not yet been referred to the Staff Sub-committee but that it certainly will be.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, made an interesting point about secondment. Again, I shall consider that and see whether I can help. Despite some of the strictures made about Select Committees, I have always been told so much about the valuable work that they do and I think that they are an important part of our procedures. We must ensure that they are given the chance to work properly. I certainly take the point that their findings should be debated at a proper time.
Although I have taken a rather long time, I hope that I have done my best to do justice to a very important debate. I have tried to give your Lordships the answers to as many questions as I can. I hope that I have achieved that. I very much welcome the working group's report, and I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and to all the members of the group. I welcome the helpful and constructive remarks that have been made this afternoon.
I shall now proceed as I promised at the start of the debate. We shall have the discussions. We shall have the paper presented to the Procedure Committee and then we shall see what the House makes of it all. I commend the report to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Agricultural Research and Development
7.54 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will outline their future policy on agricultural research and development and whether they plan to reduce the number of staff engaged in agricultural research, development and advisory work; and if so by how many and over what period of time.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to begin by explaining why I put this Question down. Those of your Lordships who take an interest in these matters will know that there is considerable concern in the agricultural industry and among the staff of the various research and development institutes at the stories and rumours that are circulating regarding the possibility of yet further cuts in agricultural research, development and advisory work.
I thought that putting down this Question would give the Minister the chance to scotch these rumours; to reassure the industry and the staffs of the various institutes and also to set out the Government's policy on agricultural research and development and perhaps give their manpower guidelines.
I wish first to ask the Minister to explain the figures in the press release issued by the Ministry yesterday in connection with the Autumn Statement. That press release stated that the provisions for 1989–90 and for the following year have been reduced by £5 million and £10 million respectively to reflect an increasing level of industry funding for research and development. Presumably those figures represent the Ministry's targets for raising the extra funds from industry. Will the Minister explain whether, if there are further cuts in the pipeline as a result of the review of research and development emanating from No. 10 and the Cabinet Office, these cuts would be in addition to the £15 million in the Autumn Statement?
The industry feels a little hard done by by the fact that it seems to be penalised on its success in raising money towards research and development. It seems that the more the industry raises the more the Treasury decides to cut the money for research and development. We know all about cuts. They have been of the order of 20 per cent. since 1985. We are now told, and I agree, that we have a leaner and fitter research and development effort. Also there has been a substantial increase in funding from within the industry itself.
One way and another farmers are contributing something in the order of £9 million towards research and development. There is also the research effort which takes place completely outside the public sector; for example, the arable research centres, which are funded entirely by farmers. The Horticultural Development Council has been set up and a levy is collected through the HGCA for research and development into cereals. There are also the proposals which the Minister will know about for a Development Council for oilseeds. All those bodies raise money from the industry for research and development.
The Minister will know that the industry has been urged to take on board the concept of the bolt on levy to raise money to attach to the existing effort. It is hard to bolt on to fresh air. We have to be sure that there will be a central research and development effort so that when levies are collected from farmers the money will be well spent.
We are aware from the stories that are now circulating in the press of the new phrase or the buzz word, "near market research". That seems to me to be one of those deceptively simple ideas which emerges from the Treasury or from other places. As I understand it the argument is an extremely elegant one. It is that if we want it, we pay for it. If we will not pay for it we obviously do not want it. That argument misses the point completely about farming and farmers.
As the Minister knows, the farming industry consists of a large number of small businesses. A substantial proportion of those businesses are just stuggling to survive. The farmer is not always aware of the benefits of R&D at farm level and he is not always able to handle rapid changes of policy on research and development. It is almost possible to say in that regard that sometimes the man in Whitehall does know best. I urge the Minister in considering near market research not to assume too great a sophistication on the part of the farmer in considering that concept.
I believe that all those in the industry and indeed those who work in the R&D sector are entitled to ask for a period of stability to give the staffs of the various institutes some idea of where they are after the cuts we have gone through in the last two to three years. The Minister will not be surprised to learn that the uncertainty which has been created is resulting in very poor morale among many of the people engaged in that field.
There is also the problem of defining near market research. If we consider the things which the agricultural industry in its R&D effort should be looking at, in the new field of biotechnology, the whole area of lower inputs into farming, the problems of the environment, of diet and human health and the problems of animal welfare, those are all what economists would describe as public goods. They should be paid for, in my view, by the public sector.
Perhaps I may give a practical example concerning a matter about which we shall be hearing within the next few months—the set-aside programme. If a farmer has a fallow, the leaching of nitrates from a fallow occurs at a greater rate than from almost anything else which can be done with land. If instead we grow a green manure crop such as mustard, that is a pernicious weed in the rape crop that might follow it.
That is an example of the sort of thing for which we are entitled to ask for help in research and development. The farmer should not be asked to pay for the work because it is, after all, a constriction on the production and profit for the public good.
Tomorrow we shall be discussing a Bill which provides grants for farm diversification and the farm
1056
woodlands scheme. Those matters will also require research.
There is a place for commercial funding and it would be silly to deny it. If a company or a group of farmers can see a specific commercial advantage they should pay for the research work required on the basis of a research contract. But all those matters must be examined objectively. There is a key point about the dangers of commercial funding.
I was struck recently by the juxtaposition of two articles in the Grower magazine. One column concerned the fresh research and development cuts which are likely to occur in 1988. The Minister may have seen the article. It was said that the response of the research institutes to the news that was emerging from the science policy adviser to the Cabinet was chilling with regard to its effect on R&D. Next to that article was a story which stated that ADAS had just concluded its first agreement in the horticultural industry with a commercial company. The agreement is that the farmer, if he buys the products of that company, will be given the ADAS service free. I have been engaged for 30 years as an agricultural consultant and never once in that time would I have dreamed of having an arrangement of that nature. I see that the Minister looks surprised and that she is agreeing with me. That example illustrates the danger of commercial funding.
If one takes the possibility that ADAS might not reach its budget of £6 million from charging, and if you are the man in the field and you know that there is pressure on the budget and your job may be the one to go if the budget is cut, then will you be as objective as you should be when you consider the products of that company?
Such examples of the dangers of commercial funding occur in other parts of the industry as well; I know of a number of examples of the type of arrangement by which a commercial company subsidises the use of ADAS by a farmer.
I would argue that much of the research and development effort in agriculture is strategic and that the timespan for planning should be much longer than the three years, say, of the Annual Statement. I urge the Minister to identify the long-term strategic nature of much of the work done in the research and development field and to move it upstream to a five-year or perhaps even a 10-year timespan.
All these matters must be put into perspective. Suppose that the story in the press referring to cuts of the order of £60 million is wrong by a factor of two-thirds. Let us say that the Ministry will be looking for reductions of the order of £20 million. One can think of the agony and upset that will be caused in the R&D sector by a cut of that size. May I remind the House that £20 million was the cost of the advertising for the flotation of BP shares?
I should like to conclude by asking the Minister some specific questions. What is the department's view of its role in providing a viable research, development and advisory service to the rural community? What is its policy concerning the public funding of strategic and applied research and development? May we have a definition of near market research? Who is going to define it; will it be

1057
done within the department or externally? Having defined it, what will be done about it? Are such areas to be privatised? Are they to be cut out completely or perhaps funded by an industry-wide levy?
I also urge the Minister to look carefully at the legislation concerning development councils. They provide a way of raising funds from all sides of industry—farmers, processors, the trade and so forth. There are some good examples of those councils at work.
I believe that the crucial point is the timescale of the review that is now going on. This matter is causing a great deal of anxiety in the industry and among the research people concerned. We have heard stories concerning cuts happening in the next two years or so. R&D staffs are entitled to know after all that has happened in the last few years how many jobs may go and when.
Lastly, I hope that the Minister will undertake to ensure that both Parliament and the industry will have the chance to discuss the proposals and that they will not he presented with a fait accompli.
8.7 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for putting down the Question. I am particularly grateful because only last week I intended to put down a Question along similar lines. In looking through the Order Paper, I found that the noble Lord had already done so. We are grateful to him.
I am concerned about the effects of Government cuts in funding for research in terms of the agricultural research stations and institutes. My knowledge, such as it is, comes from Rothamsted, where I am a member. I glory in the title of Treasurer of the Lords Agricultural Trust Committee, which is the governing body of Rothamsted. That research station has had very severe cuts in staff over the past six years. The Government have quite correctly curtailed expenditure and I applaud that. It is a major part of their philosophy and I believe that they are quite right to do so. Not just agricultural research but all research has had to take its share of the cuts. Although it bleated, it expected to take its share of those cuts. However, the cuts have been substantial; and they go on and on, as does the demand for cuts.
My fear is that the fat has gone. Further cuts will make inroads into the very core of the scientific operation and scientific integrity of those stations. It is all very well for the Government to say, "Go out and get funding from sponsors in the marketplace". In general, I agree with that philosophy. Sponsors will not readily agree to put their money long-term into research stations when the scientific core and excellence of the establishment and the reputation responsible for attracting the funding in the first place are themselves at risk and might even be in danger of being diminished.
If I may give an example. In April 1981 there were 850 science-grade posts in arable crops research between seven stations (of which Rothamsted was one) and of those 424 posts were at Rothamsted. In April 1988 there will be only 424 such posts in all
1058
arable crops research stations of which Rothamsted will have only 247. In other words, in 1981 one station out of seven—Rothamsted—employed as many science-grade people as does the whole Arable Crops Research Institute now. These cuts have been traumatic.
It does not end with staff cuts. When staff is cut and buildings remain the same, the overheads increase making it consequentially difficult to get outside sponsors because commercial bodies do not want to pay for large overheads. They want specifics. The more the staff is cut, the worse becomes morale. Those who are left wonder why they should remain and if it is worth their while to do so.
Very often offers come from abroad. This weekend I was talking about one person, admittedly in a different area of research—namely medical research—who had been in America for one year and was returning to England. He was a surgeon and he had a number of offers of employment from America including one with a salary of 500,000 dollars per year which is the equivalent of £300,000 per year. He was returning to a consultancy worth £30,000 in England.
The danger of the brain drain is considerable and it was in order to try to stop this, especially for scientists who were working in the Ministry of Defence, that the Government decided to increase the pay of scientists by 22 per cent. in two years. That was understandable because they wanted to try to prevent the brain drain. Of course it is much easier for the Ministry of Defence. Most of their budget is spent on weaponry and upon the armed services. The effect of the increase in the pay of scientists on the Ministry of Defence is therefore insignificant. But because scientists in the Ministry of Defence get increases, scientists across the board in government research also get increases. The effect of this has been devastating in agricultural research.
Institutes have a higher proportion of that kind of staff than other research councils. The great majority of staff are in the IPCS grades, and most of them are at the top of the scale. The budget of over 70 per cent. of agricultural research institutes goes on salaries. The opportunities to rob other areas of expense is minimal. This can only be done on building maintenance and the replacement of equipment. There is not much scope there.
The problem itself is further compounded by the fact that the sophistication of modern equipment requires vastly increased funds to be spent on equipment if research is to be kept to the forefront. One cannot expect excellence of research to be achieved by using out-of-date and inadequate equipment. This is not peculiar to agriculture but it is a problem which faces those who have to balance the books at research stations.
To put it in perspective, in 1987–1988 the grant-in-aid made by the Government for arable crops is £12 million. In 1981–1982 it was £15 million. At today's values that 15 million would have been worth over £20 million. So in six years government funding has dropped in real terms from £20 million to £12 million, and it is now only 60 per cent. of what it was six years ago on arable crops research.

1059
At the same time the top-of-the-scale salaries to which I have referred have increased by 40 per cent. Even the expense of ordinary scientific equipment like flasks has increased by far more than the cost of inflation before one considers the cost and the requirement for specialised sophisticated equipment. Obviously, the combination of the substantial cuts in funding on the one side and the greatly increased costs on the other, has meant only one thing and that is loss of jobs. It is the only practical place where cuts can be made. Put blandly, Rothamsted has been kept in balance simply by firing people. At Rothamsted the number of science-grade posts has halved in six years from 424 to 247, and this trend looks like continuing.
I am bound to tell your Lordships that the budget for next year for the Institute of Arable Crops Research shows a deficit of £850,000. I do not know what is going to be done about this. There is a plan to make a further 33 posts redundant, but that will save only £550,000. That will make the seventh round of redundancies and if the Government do not make up the difference between £550,000 and £850,000 then a further list of redundancies—the eighth in five years—will be drawn up representing another 18 posts.
My fear is that agricultural scientific research is being put severely at risk. I happen to have referred to Rothamsted because that is where my experience has been gained. However, I have no reason to doubt that the same picture is reflected in other research institutes throughout the industry. Much is being done, and quite rightly so, and with great enthusiasm, to attract earnings from industry and other sources. But this is the point. It becomes progressively more difficult to attract funds if the core staff are lost because it is they who are the very ones who are capable of planning and directing projects. Yet they are not the ones who are necessarily central to an applied programme which of course is what the sponsor wants.
It is all very well for the Minister of Agriculture, my right honourable friend, to say that agriculture users should provide the funds or that agriculture should do so. He must know that the state of agriculture is such that farmers are concerned, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, just to continue to exist. Some people are going bankrupt. There is not a pot of cash there to be raided for research.
My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday that there is an extra £45 million to be allowed for scientific research. That sounds good; but I ask my noble friend Lady Trumpington: how much of that is going to agriculture? I understand that most of it has already been allocated. I understand that £6 million is being devoted to research on AIDS; £8½ million is devoted to the purchase of a ship; and £27 million for pay increases. That leaves only £3½ million for investment on all scientific research for which the Government are responsible.
How much of this is going to agriculture? There is concern because all the vibrations indicate that the Government are going to cut yet further their support for agricultural research. I know that agriculture is at
1060
present unpopular because of surpluses, the common agricultural policy and also because of the perceived effects upon the environment of chemicals and the problems of wildlife. The fact is that agriculture is a huge and, let us not forget it, a very important industry. We cannot afford to turn off the taps on research, nor can we afford to wreck it. Much of the present research is designed to improve the very aspects for which agriculture has been criticised.
The warning I give to the Government this evening is simply this. Look out! The excellence of research, the morale of research and the integrity of research is at risk. The Government have their responsibility—not the whole responsibility but an important part of it—for ensuring that research is not put at risk.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I too express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this vitally important matter and also for the admirable way in which he introduced the subject. As those of us who have the privilege of knowing him already realise, he showed a very wide knowledge of not only the technical matters of farming but also the much wider aspects. In doing so he gave us an admirable introduction to this debate.
When the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, started his speech I was a little surprised that he applauded the present Government in the principle of their cuts in agricultural research. However, in listening to the rest of his speech there was nothing with which I could not find myself in complete and wholehearted agreement, particularly his final warning.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I did not actually say that I applauded the cuts in research. I said that I applauded the cuts in government expenditure across the board, in which research had to play its part.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I am happy to have that explanation and apologise for having misunderstood.
I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I start with a personal reminiscence. Some 50 years ago I was engaged as a young bacteriologist in research into blood clotting. I was working in particular with the staphylococcus which speeded up the clotting of blood and the streptococcus which had the opposite effect.
So far as I or the professor who suggested this line of research could see there was no real practical significance in this, but it was of general interest and where it would lead noboby could tell. It now transpires that the ability of the streptococcus to inhibit clotting, and in certain cases to dissolve the clot, is becoming a very important treatment in one of the great killer diseases; namely, coronary thrombosis.
I am not attempting to take any credit. Nothing I did had any effect on that. However, it is an illustration of the way in which seemingly useless research, just adding a very small amount to the general fund of knowledge, can after many years lead to something which is of great significance. All those

1061
who are engaged in research of any kind could give many such examples.
Agriculture today, as we all know, is in a transitional period. No longer are we living under the threat of shortages in this country or in Western Europe as a whole. No longer is it necessary to grow more and more, to have ever heavier crops, ever greater applications of fertilisers and ever more surpluses. We have surpluses and we have entirely new problems. It is essential for all those who are concerned with this industry that we should figure out new jobs for agriculture, new activities and new crops. The need for this will last for the foreseeable future.
I suggest that there is a special need for more work to be done on methods of resisting disease in crops and in animals which do not need the application of pesticides or sprays of one kind or another; but the need for research on this and many other aspects is just as great as ever. In some ways it is greater, because we have these new problems arising from the era of surpluses in which we are now living.
But what is happening today? We have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, what is happening at Rothamsted, the oldest and most respected of our agricultural institutes, where the grants have been cut and are still being cut. It is still under threat and morale, although still strong thanks to the fine people who are working there and the efforts of those in charge, cannot be as good as it was in the days when there was ever more money, applause and gratitude for what was being done.
For example, to add two very small points to what the noble Earl said, there is no longer a department of soil physics at Rothamsted, as I understand it. That is truly of enormous importance. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, mentioned the leaking of nitrates. One cannot understand and control matters of that kind, with the enormous implications to our water supplies and so on, unless one's knowledge of soil physics is ever widening and improving, but that has now been cut. On a rather smaller scale, there is no research into the pea crop, yet everybody agrees that we must hunt round for alternative crops to sugar-beet, wheat and barley, which are in surplus. Surely both of those aspects—one of basic importance and the other of perhaps ephemeral importance—should be encouraged with more funds made available rather than having to scrap the whole lot.
I give one example from the Plant Breeding Institute, now largely privatised. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, will be closely connected with this since her title comes from the village in which it works, Trumpington just outside Cambridge. There has been a remarkable step forward as a result of work carried out in the Plant Breeding Institute, which has recently produced plants by genetic means which are resistant to viral infection—in this case tobacco plants because they were the plants used in the experiments but the results can be applied to a whole range of plants. There is no question of sprays, but purely by making use of the new and fantastically delicate operations of genetic engineering this has opened up a whole field of advance. However, because of cuts in the finance and the changes which
1062
are being made, that work is now at risk. I put it no stronger than that.
Development in that type of work undoubtedly is not receiving the encouragement and the funds which could make so much contribution, not for the next five years but perhaps for the next 10, 20 or 30 years. That is the sort of horizon that we should be looking at when discussing these matters.
I end by quoting some comments which some of your Lordships may have read in the newspapers today by Sir Walter Bodmer, the President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. He is reported as saying that the science budget needs to be increased by £100 million in real terms. In real terms it faces an annual reduction of 4 per cent. According to Sir Walter, the announcements made yesterday are extremely disappointing and totally inadequate. That does not specifically apply to agricultural science but agricultural science and research is, after all, one aspect—an important but not the most important aspect, as I freely admit—of the whole attitude of our present Government towards scientific research.
Industry quite rightly should be looked to to provide funds for the type of research that will give short-term advantages and out of which industry itself can make a profit, but we cannot look to industry to provide the funds for the basic research which has such long-term implications. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to give us some encouragement when she comes to reply to this short debate.
8.31 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Carter for providing this opportunity to debate these critical questions. I wish also to indicate my support for the points raised by my noble friend in his opening remarks.
During a debate on a similar subject in this House on 14th May 1986, some 18 months ago, I expressed concern along with other noble Lords about the Government's policies and about the reduction in the finance available for agricultural research, development and the advisory services. In that debate I indicated the importance of agriculture to the Northern Ireland economy where some 14 per cent. of the working population are engaged in farming and in industries and services directly related to farming. I am pleased to say that Mr. Tom King, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, strongly emphasised the importance of agriculture to Northern Ireland when he spoke to a number of agricultural journalists some two weeks ago. I quote from the Belfast Newsletter dated 19th October 1987 in which Mr. King said:
"With its ancillaries it is our major industry employing eight times as many people as the shipyard and produces food products worth well over £1 billion each year … One of the most important requirements in our agricultural industry is the ability to export. Approximately three-quarters of the production of our food companies is shipped out of Northern Ireland".
Mr. King went on to say to the journalists that the research and development which they would see during their tour of Northern Ireland provided incomparable back-up for the industry. He said:
"Northern Ireland has a unique animal health status within the British Isles. This is a commercially valuable asset which we jealously

1063
develop and maintain. Today many commercially significant animal diseases, endemic elsewhere in Europe and in Britain, are absent in Northern Ireland. This year we have introduced new schemes to improve the breeding of cattle and sheep to ensure that our meat products continue to meet the standards of leanness and quality which the customer demands".
I welcome and support Mr. King's praise for Northern Ireland's agricultural industry. However it must be said—and Mr. King is well aware of the situation—that the high standards and status of Northern Ireland's agricultural products have not been obtained by the policies of the present Government; nor by measures adopted over the past few years. The high standards and status of agricultural production have been the outcome of agricultural research, development and advisory services laid down and acted upon by the Department of Agriculture, Northern Ireland, over a period of many years. Indeed the criticism made in the debate 18 months ago of the present Government's policies and of the financial cuts introduced some time before that concerning these basic and crucial services has proved to be well founded; and as this debate has already suggested, the trends are likely to be even more regressive.
In my opinion this is borne out by the figures published in the Belfast Newsletter of 31st October. It stated:
"A further fall in cattle numbers is revealed in the final results of the agricultural census taken on June 1, 1987, in Northern Ireland.
"A department spokesman said that, with some exceptions, the results published yesterday confirmed the trends indicated by the preliminary figures published in August. Within the cattle numbers, dairy and beef cow herds showed slight declines, accompanied by larger falls in other cattle … Total cattle numbers fell by 3 per cent. to 1·43 million".
Over the years the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture has developed a highly sophisticated and expert range of research, development and advisory services. These schemes are incorporated in legislation and are provided through centres established by DANI in association with Queen's University, the Ulster University and agriculture colleges. Some specific examples of the consequences of the financial cuts have already been given, consequences in respect of the industry and the skilled personnel involved in agricultural production. I want to give one example.
One unit covers three aspects of research, development and advisory services. I refer to the Cattle Artificial Insemination Unit, the AI Scheme in Northern Ireland. The Ulster Year Book, which is the official handbook for Northern Ireland, states on page 173:
"The Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture operates various schemes and services to help producers of livestock to obtain breeding stock with high genetic potential thus ensuring that commercial producers have access to stock with the highest productive capacity.
"The object of the AI Scheme is the improvement of the quality of both dairy and beef cattle in Northern Ireland. It can also play a considerable part in the prevention of diseases which affect the breeding cycle of cattle as well as reducing the possibility of spread of other infectious or contagious diseases. The Department provides an Al service by technicians through 11 centres around Northern Ireland. A wide selection of semen from proven hulls is available to Northern Ireland farmers".
1064
On Friday 30th October I received a 10-page paper from the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance; it was a copy of that organisation's response to proposals by the Government to disengage from the provision of this AI service. In other words, the Government plan to privatise the AI unit for the artificial insemination of cattle. NIPSA is a recognised trade union organisation and represents all grades of Northern Ireland Civil Service employees except a few posts at Permanent Secretary level. Indeed, NIPSA and the trade union movement in Northern Ireland are seriously concerned about this proposal and the lack of adequate consultations about the loss of more than 100 jobs in the unit.
Many representatives of the farming community have also expressed their deep concern about the proposal and one spokesman is quoted as saying, and I quote from the Irish News of 19th October 1987:
"This lastest example of the privatisation disease could have serious consequences both for the smaller farmer and for the overall quality of the Northern Ireland cattle herd. The Al system at present provides a prompt, high quality service at a reasonable cost to all farmers. An ordinary visit costs less than £5. This has resulted, due to the wide use of a consistent, quality service, in a noticeable improvement in the quality of the Northern Ireland cattle stock. We could have no guarantees in a privatised free-for-all situation that the cost or availability of the service could be maintained, especially to the smaller users. That could lead to farmers returning to making their own direct arrangements with inferior animals and to a deterioration in the quality of the Northern Ireland herd. The maintenance by the Department of Agriculture of an effective, high quality, low cost operation has been of great advantage to farmers individually and to the agricultural economy of Northern Ireland as a whole."
I quote from a summary of the 10-page document presented to me by the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance:
"The proposal that DANI disengages from the AI Service cannot be examined in isolation from other factors. The resources needed to police and enforce the conditions governing a privatised Service coupled with the effects on the animal health status of the herd and losses arising from the use of inferior bulls cannot be ignored. The cost to the tax-payer is also important. Social Security budgets will increase, Inland Revenue and National Insurance contributions will be reduced. Permanent job loss will occur, dole queues will increase and Government, rather than meeting their promise to improve the economic and employment position within the country, will manifestly be seen to be doing the opposite. Disengagement, especially if it results in privatisation, means the Department retaining responsibility for, but losing control of, the Service. The cost of disengagement and/or privatisation to Northern Ireland's economy in general and the farming community in particular will be enormous. It quite simply cannot be afforded and must not happen."
Since receiving the paper I have not had an opportunity to consult the department or Lord Lyell who, as we know, is Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the Northern Ireland Office with special responsibility for agriculture. Nor indeed have I had the time to discuss the matter in detail with the official Opposition spokesman dealing with Northern Ireland affairs or with the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord John-Mackie, who deal with agriculture. Nor have I had an opportunity to mention my intention to raise the matter with the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, who will reply. Therefore, I do not expect anything to emerge by way of reply to the matters urgently presented to me.
With the best interests of Northern Ireland agriculture in mind, I hope that the debate and the official record may alert the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and his ministerial colleagues to the situation and that they will arrange for urgent and

1065
earnest consultations with the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance representatives. I also hope that more attention will be given by the Government to research and development and to the advisory services of the agriculture industry throughout the United Kingdom. Some despairing reports have been presented to the House this evening. I hope that these will be examined in close detail by the Government.
8.44 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, I should explain at the outset that my interest is as Chairman of the Agricultural and Food Research Council. I wish to talk not so much about that council but about the whole breadth of agricultural research in the country in terms of the Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I must say how grateful I am to the noble Lord for introducing the subject. By the force of his speech and indeed by the force of the speech of my noble friend Lord Ferrers, it was made clear that in the last few years there has been a quite dramatic change in agricultural research in this country. Its extent was tellingly spelt out by my noble friend in terms of the Rothamsted Institute, although that could be repeated throughout the research services, be it within the Ministry of Agriculture, in Scotland within the AFRC or, following the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Blease, to an extent in Northern Ireland. I have been impressed when visiting Hillsborough in Northern Ireland by the high quality of research undertaken there. It is very much part of the complex and wide, though sometimes rather difficult to follow, structure of agricultural research. One can add to that the research associations' university research work.
Throughout the field of agricultural and food research, as we have heard, dramatic changes have taken place in the past few years. I believe that there have been positive changes to meet the new challenges. ADAS, the AFRC and others have changed their management structure. This has been highly advantageous. As we have heard, changes have taken place in the source of funding and I am sure that, as we have heard, there will be yet further changes in line with government wishes—but more of that anon.
There have been shifts in research emphasis—that is, in the shape of research programmes. Indeed, the House on a number of occasions has expressed great interest in seeing such new initiatives in agricultural and food research. I can recollect some very useful debates on the impact of agriculture on the environment led by the noble Lord, Lord Adrian. I remember debates on animal health and veterinary sciences, on agricultural engineering and on biotechnology—one of the glamour areas of the biological sciences, in which agricultural research has a pivotal and successful role. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and others speaking with great passion and force and, I thought, with great conviction about the need for maintaining a research base for grassland farming in Wales and the West. Only last February we had the new initiative from the Government referring in part to the need to research alternative crops to support rural areas. All this
1066
demonstrates how important many sectors judge research to be if we are to meet the fast changing needs not just of agriculture and food but of a large number of industries based on the biological sciences.
Those changes have taken place against swingeing cuts and, possibly even more damaging, against the fear of yet more cuts. Sadly, yesterday's press release from the Ministry confirms that these fears are not misplaced. I know that there is some increased funding in the science Vote, from which I hope the AFRC may benefit. I fear that the Ministry of Agriculture will not be able to do so; nor will the Department of Agriculture in Scotland. As my noble friend Lord Ferrers pointed out, a large part of these funds must already have been earmarked.
I am saddened by the terms of the press release, which states:
"The provisions for 1989–90 and 1990–91 have also been reduced (by £5 million and £10 million respectively) to reflect an increasing level of industry funding for research and development".
The implication is clearly, "If you're successful enough to get industrial funding, we're going to cut you". If ever there was an incentive for research institutes to obtain alternative funding, that is not it. I fear that it flies very much in the face of the assurance given to me many times by successive Ministers that, if agriculture looked after itself, it would receive support. I should welcome an assurance from my noble friend that the inference drawn from that one rather damaging sentence is wrong.
The plea for long-term strategic thinking about the role of agricultural research which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, would be echoed not just by research managers and research staff but in particular by industrial funders—people who are already participating in funding research in this country. My noble friend Lord Ferrers made this point very forcefully. They cannot be expected to put increasing sums of money into our research institutes if the base is being forever eroded and if they do not know where the bottom line will be. I repeat that the words of that press statement are not calculated to inspire great enthusiasm.
Time and again in debates on all aspects of the civil research budget and civil research policy, the point has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, and others, of the need for an oversight of civil research; that we cannot go on taking pot-shots at this or that aspect of research. We are talking today about agricultural research but on another day we might well be talking about research on the energy industry or the like.
What has been needed for a long time is a strategic oversight. It is greatly to be welcomed that we now have the machinery for such an oversight. We have the Advisory Committee on Science and Technology (shortened inevitably to ACOST). That is in response to your Lordships' Select Committee. I am sure that the research managers in the Ministry of Agriculture, ACOST and elsewhere, will welcome enormously the opportunity which now exists to extend this oversight not to agricultural research alone but to the biological sciences as a whole. It is too early—because ACOST is only just in place—to get a feel as to what it is likely to determine. However, I

1067
can quite imagine, although I would not necessarily agree, that ACOST may take the view that "near market" research—the buzz word, we have heard—may well be an area into which industry should be encouraged to move further. I would not necessarily agree or disagree but let us assume that that would be the view.
I am sure my noble friend will make this point very forcefully on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture. I believe that ACOST and my noble friend will make the point that agriculture, which has always been a technology-driven industry, will need the support and the underpinning of research and development very much more once the common agricultural policy is brought under control. Clearly, the common agricultural policy has been a grave source of embarrassment to successive governments. It was never intended that the scale of support, which is a burden on our own taxpayers, should be anything like it is at the moment.
I am equally clear that, in frustration at this inability of successive agriculture Ministers to control this cost, the reaction has been to remove all support which is within the purview of the Government, and that includes research and development. I think that it is reasonable to assume from these Benches that we shall be successful well within the lifetime of this Government in controlling quite dramatically the cost of the common agricultural policy. Farmers will not like this: inevitably the implication is that life will be tougher than it is at the moment. We shall have to be more competitive in world terms. We shall have to be able to implement technology fast. We shall be desperately looking for that technology support.
I would make this plea—and noble Lords will recognise that I have a very strong vested interest in this area—that, whatever other support policy is removed from agriculture, we look very carefully at the support which is provided by research and development if we want to have a viable agriculture in five or ten years' time, or certainly at the turn of the century. I do not believe yet that this has been done. I believe that the constant sniping at agricultural and food research which has been so damaging has not taken this overall strategy into account. It is time that ACOST—which is the machinery that should handle this—did this. It is sad that I have to say this one day after yet a further cut which will clearly be damaging.
I want to widen this point because I do not expect ACOST to look only at the needs of agriculture and the food industry but at the areas which will produce the greatest return to the economy of this country. In other words, where will civil research provide not simply jobs for scientists—which is clearly not the consideration—but profitable areas of underpinning for the new industries that we are likely to see growing in the next 10 or 20 years? I would suggest to noble Lords that the biological sciences will be one of two or three growth areas—biotechnology certainly comes to mind—and there are other areas where the agricultural and food research services within the departments and the research council will be able to give valuable underpinning. Before we dissipate these important research resources further, let us make
1068
sure that we shall not have to rebuild this expertise somewhere else with a time lag and with a damaged continuity of research which will be greatly regretted.
I am convinced that the positive response that the research services have made to the recent cuts, the ablity to move positively and rapidly into the new areas which have been identified, and the quality of the scientific work involved will be greatly appreciated by successive governments. I therefore ask the Minister when she replies to think very carefully about whether it is not possible now to give some degree of assurance that there will be no further cuts until long-term strategic thinking about the biological sciences, and agricultural and food research placed within that, has been fully worked out.
8.58 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I must apologise for the fact that I was not in my place at the appropriate time. My train was held up by a serious fire.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for raising this important subject this evening. When I look back on my early memories in agriculture of going round farms with my father at the beginning of the war, it was then in a parlous state. It was largely due to the agricultural research and the advisory services that we can now look at our agriculture and be proud that it is perhaps one of the best systems in the world and certainly the best in Europe. It would be the greatest possible shame if penny-pinching cuts in research budgets were to cause us to lose this lead. I very much support the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, in what he said in this respect. It may have been good medicine to cut back research budgets. I believe that it has introduced a new spirit of realism in the world of agricultural research. But good medicine, if it is administered for too long, often kills the patient in the end.
There are two specific points of concern which I should like to raise with the noble Baroness tonight. The first relates to the fact that rather less than 6 per cent. of the funding of the AFRC budget goes into the research which takes place at universities. This compares very disadvantageously with the percentage of other research budgets, such as the medical budget, which go to research carried on in universities and puts agricultural departments at a grave disadvantage. Not only does it put them at a disadvantage in terms of their research performance but also in the context of teaching. Teaching at university level needs to be supported by research. Unless there is well-funded research potential available in a university it is increasingly difficult to attract the best teachers and the best scientists to teach in those departments. Can the noble Baroness give me any comfort that plans are in hand to help universities in this respect?
The second point I should like to raise relates to research funding of cultural and economic questions, in particular relating to agricultural policy. The kind of questions I mean are these. What will be the effect of the oils and fats tax on consumers and farmers? What will be the employment implications of reduced levels of support to agriculture or indeed of other strategies such as set aside? If a pre-pension scheme

1069
option is selected what level of pre-pension scheme will be necessary to attract the desired number of farmers out of the industry?
At the moment the answer to these questions is largely based on guesswork. There is a need for properly maintained economic models so that more efficient answers can be given. It is a travesty that the Government spend annually a couple of billion pounds on supporting agriculture and over a hundred million on technical agricultural support but they devote only a pittance to research which is aimed at understanding the economic and social consequences of changes in policy.
I am wondering whether the noble Baroness can answer the following three questions on this subject. I appreciate that the first two may involve numerical complexities which may require an answer in writing at a later date. The first is: what is the total annual expenditure on research into economic issues affecting food, agriculture and rural areas? Secondly, of this total, excluding the farm business and food expenditure surveys, what proportion is spent on research into the economic and social impact of United Kingdom and Community agricultural policies? Finally, and I think this is important, what are the mechanisms for ensuring co-ordination of research effort into these areas?
9.2 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I too should like to congratulate my noble friend. This is the second or third time that he has raised a debate in this House and he does it very well indeed. From the speeches we have just heard, the subject he has chosen will be very much appreciated because it is a very important one indeed.
I should like to take a leaf, or at least half a leaf, out of the book of my noble friend Lord Taylor of Blackburn. In the debate we have just finished he rose, said that everything had been said that he wanted to say, that it had been said better than he could say it, and sat down again. Quite a lot of what I wanted to say has been said by other speakers tonight and I do not want to touch on those subjects again. However, I should like to mention one or two of the remarks that have4 been made.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, made an important point about salaries. One cannot blame people taking advantage of higher salaries if they see double or three times their salaries available elsewhere and hear of rumours of privatisation, closing down and cuts. Nevertheless it causes a brain drain from this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, mentioned the genetic engineering done by the PBI. That is continuing, but it has been cut off from the development side. I think that was a huge mistake and I hope it will not affect it as much as was thought. The noble Lord, Lord Blease, as always, was interesting about his home country. He made several good points about the artificial insemination schemes. One important point he made concerned the loss of jobs in the area, where work is very scarce anyway.
1070
I brought with me the 1985 report on priorities of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, because I felt sure that he would mention something about it. He mentioned the difficulties of planning ahead in producing such a report and wanting all that done and then feeling that, as you cannot go ahead with various matters because of cuts all along the line, what is the use of such a report? I very much appreciated what he said on the various aspects of his work.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, asked a few questions to which we shall look forward to hearing the Minister's answers. The trouble with an Unstarred Question is the fact that the Minister speaks last and we do not know what she will have to say. Tonight she will have a lot to say, because I have never seen the Box or the messengers working so hard as they have been tonight in this last hour. We look forward to hearing what she has to say and her replies to the various questions that have been asked.
I should like to make two remarks. We know that the Government have a policy of privatization—it is a dogmatic policy which I do not like—but I should like to think that if they intend to privatise any more research stations they will take on board the lesson of the mistakes they made over the PBI. They started out way back in May 1984 with the idea of selling off the NSDO. It took them a whole year to discover that they could not do that without the PBI. They had to start all over again, and here we are at the end of 1987;I know the matter has been settled but no doubt there is a lot to do before the new company takes over. I should like to think that that will not happen again and they will think everything through before doing such a major thing as privatising PBI. The result over these four years has been uncertainty among the staff who left. Everything has been done to deprecate the work of that great institution, which has done more than anyone, in my opinion, to help British farming and to help with reducing surpluses. After all, about 80 per cent. of wheat grown last year grew from seeds brought out by the PBI.
My noble friend Lord Carter raised my second issue in a different way. It concerns the question of advice from ADAS, for quite a proportion of which farmers to a certain extent were paying. Over the years all the advice we have had has been independent, from independent public research stations. During my farming career, which stretches to 61 years at the end of next month, I valued advice from colleges in Scotland, and from ADAS when I became a farmer in England, because of its independence. Now ADAS will not have that independence—my noble friend Lord Carter gave us an example—and farmers will have to go to private firms. The best of luck to them. But they will need advice and one cannot blame ADAS if that advice is biased in favour of its own products or plants. It seems a pity that this has happened. I do not think it is good for a service in which farmers have had such great faith over the years.
I do not want to say any more. Time is getting on and it is fairly late. We look forward to what the Minister has to say. The message she must have received from everybody tonight is that we neglect research and development at our peril.
9.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, we have had a wide-ranging debate on a subject which may well help to determine the sorts of lives our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will lead, particularly in terms of the food that they will eat and the countryside which we hope they will enjoy. The fact that it was a wide-ranging debate may explain to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, that although I am sometimes a helpless lily I was grateful for the sheaves of paper that were coming across to me.
I was also grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was kind enough to alert me in advance to the points he planned to raise. The advancement of knowledge and its sensible application to what we do are matters of the greatest importance. I have always been warned that sometimes in your Lordships' House it is the friend who sits behind one of whom one should beware. I am therefore beholden to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for giving us the opportunity to discuss these issues at a time when government itself is in the process of reviewing its priorities and objectives for research and development and indeed for science and technology generally. This is happening not just in agriculture but across the whole spectrum of the Government's civil programmes.
Because that review is still being carried out and the debate is so wide-ranging, I shall not be able to give your Lordships definitive conclusions today. But I hope that I shall be able to set a number of recent reports and rumours in perspective and to answer at least some of the concerns which have been expressed in the course of the debate.
Perhaps I can best begin with what I might dare to term the "cutting edge" of the noble Lord's Question. Your Lordships are no doubt aware of the Statement made yesterday by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place announcing the new planning provisions for expenditure on agriculture, fisheries and food for the next three years.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, suggested that industry is being penalised for contributing to research. It is quite the reverse, my Lords. The Government believe that it is appropriate for industry to do more. I was particularly interested in the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, with regard to his views on CAP. He will realise that, contrary to the speculation in a number of earlier reports, we are not reducing in any way the amount of research that we plan to commission in 1988–89. The cash provision is in fact being slightly increased to take account of the recent science salary increases. After allowing for this, the provisions for 1989–90 and 1990–91 are being reduced by £5 million and £10 million respectively, consistent with the Government's general view that industry should contribute more to work from which it benefits.
I should like to emphasise that these changes are in anticipation of increased industry funding. If this is not forthcoming there will inevitably be less research carried out. I was not aware that the noble Lord,
1072
Lord Carter, was in Harrogate last week; but word travels fast, and it is perfectly true that when I spoke to the Horticultural Trades Association in that lovely city I said to them, "Are you prepared to contribute to R&D which is of direct benefit to you? If the answer is 'No, we are not prepared to pay for even part of it', then the natural conclusion to draw is that the industry does not regard the R&D as value for money". I stand by that statement.
My noble friend Lord Selborne spoke of a damaging sentence in the press release. I agree that it is rather starkly stated; but it is really another way of saying that the balance between public and industry funding needs to be altered. The sentence was not meant to imply lack of recognition for what has been done, or any attempt to penalise industry.
To follow up from what I have just said, that there is no specific plan to reduce the number of staff engaged in R&D or advisory work, the emphasis is rather on the balance of funding as between the public and private sectors and the priorities we should adopt. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, noted that much work is strategic. I would agree up to a point. That is why we are saying that industry should concentrate on, and pay for, the work which is of more direct benefit to it, leaving government freer to fund the rest.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend for a moment because she made quite an important statement? I want to get it absolutely clear. Did my noble friend say that the Government did not wish to see any reduction in the amount of work done by research and development and the amount of personnel involved?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I said that there is no specific plan to reduce the number of staff engaged in R&D or advisory work. I believe that that is the statement which my noble friend was querying. I repeat that the emphasis is on the balance of funding as between the public and private sectors and the priorities that we should adopt. I hope that I have made myself clear.
Returning to answering the noble Lord, Lord Carter, as regards the work being strategic, I said that I agree. That is why we are saying that industry should concentrate on and pay for the work which is of more direct benefit to it, leaving government more free to fund the rest. On the questions of the balance of funding and the priorities we should adopt, our thinking is still evolving, so it is particularly welcome to have heard what noble Lords have said tonight. If I do not take up every point in the course of this speech, I hope that your Lordships will accept my assurance that everything that has been said has been carefully noted and will be taken into account. We are conscious of the need referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for the industry to have time to respond to any changes.
I should like to reply to my noble friend Lord Ferrers on the question of Rothamsted. I have taken note of his remarks. The possibility of job losses there is not the result of any government action to reduce

1073
funding. We are making money available to take account of the science salary increases but the decisions on the use of resources are a matter for the management of the institutes concerned.
Lord Walston: My Lords, before the noble Baroness leaves that point, I understood her to say that it is up to the management of Rothamsted to decide whether there should be fewer staff or fewer other things. However, she did not make clear whether the Government are to reduce, maintain or increase the amount of money.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I stated that it was up to the institute to decide on the way in which it spent money, and I left the matter there.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, made the point that the industry must be sure that there will be work on which to bolt the publicly funded element. I agree entirely with that statement.
On a more general level, it is the Government's aim to increase the contribution of publicly funded R&D to the efficiency, competitiveness and capacity for innovation of the United Kingdom economy. To assist in this it was announced in the July 1987 White Paper on Civil Research and Development that there would be strengthened central machinery to determine priorities within the context of the Government's wider objectives. This strengthened machinery takes the form of collective ministerial consideration under the Prime Minister's leadership and the new Advisory Council on Science and Technology (ACOST)—the successor body to the old Advisory Council on Applied Research and Development. The reviews which are being conducted in my department are part of this broader process.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked for a time-scale for the review. There is no specific target. However, we want to adjust the balance of funding sooner rather than later, but the decisions have not yet been taken.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers spoke about the cuts leading to increased overheads and there is a danger of that. However, both the Agricultural and Food Research Council and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland have undertaken major reorganisations to meet their changing priorities and to avoid the inefficiency that might have arisen.
I agree with much of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Walston. I should like to add a few words about the future of NSDO and PBI. That had already taken place by the time I arrived at MAFF but I was well acquainted with the feelings of local people on the subject. Notwithstanding the sale of PBI, the government intend to continue funding research and development activities in that area as appropriate. I know it is very soon, but I must say I have heard very happy remarks from the people who are working there now.
It is clear that future work in the agricultural sector will have to take full account of the problems of over-production. This will undoubtedly lead to a reallocation of resources away from areas in structural surplus and towards the need to develop alternative
1074
crop and livestock schemes to a practical stage.
We shall also be looking, in particular, at the need for agriculture to operate in sympathy with the natural environment, and to maintain the valuable public amenity that the countryside provides.
There are a number of other areas which can be broadly described as public good, where it may be more appropriate for government to take the lead, such as work on animal welfare. I think that was mentioned this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Walston.
We need also to ensure that there is a strong strategic science base on which industry can build, particularly in areas like biotechnology where there are undoubtedly new opportunities to be grasped and exploited. But as a general principle we do not think it right that the Government themselves should be funding work for which the private sector could reasonably be expected to pay.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers pondered on how much of the science increase in the Autumn Statement would go to agriculture. It is a matter for the Department of Education and Science as to how much goes to agriculture, but it is estimated that some £2 million will go on salary increases. However, it is possible that further funds will be available for important environmental and biotechnical research projects.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will appreciate, how the funding work in the private sector can be defined is one of the issues that we are still studying. It is therefore essential for industry to respond to these challenges if the United Kingdom is to avoid losing out on technical advances which are being achieved elsewhere. The type of industry funding which would be appropriate would naturally vary from sector to sector, but I would like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that we are willing to discuss the possibilities with those concerned.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, also made the point that it is sometimes difficult for individuals to benefit from R&D. I recognise that we need to do more to bring out the advantages which can be gained from research.
I should like, at this point, to say that I have every confidence in the quality and determination of British scientists. We have a tremendous record of innovation, and our agriculture and food industries are among the most highly developed in the world. But we must not be complacent or put our faith in technological advances alone. As I said at the beginning, the advancement of knowledge needs to be tempered by common sense. Therefore, we need to consider the implications of what we can do, and to provide for a consistently high level of advice. We need also to be aware of developments in other countries, and ensure that we can maximise the benefits of international collaboration.
I know that people sometimes try to make comparisons between the resources that we devote to things and those of our major competitors. However, figures on their own, even if reliable, do not necessarily reflect the very different circumstances which often exist. I suggest that we should take a look at our European neighbours and the USA where

1075
private sector expenditure on science and technology is already at a higher level.
Perhaps I may say just a word about the provision of advisory services, which takes place through ADAS in England and Wales, the Scottish Agricultural Colleges in Scotland and the Agricultural Inspectorate of the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland. Following a wide-ranging review of ADAS in 1984, the Government announced that they would be asking farmers to contribute to it. The Government have made clear to the industry that charges enable the industry to influence both the orientation and the overall extent of provision of advisory services for which charges are made.
It is still too early to draw conclusions about the extent to which industry is responding to charging, given the time required for both industry and the advisory services to adapt to the changed relationship and given that as yet there is less than a full year's experience of charging in a market that is strongly influenced by seasonal factors.
I am very sorry if the noble Lord, Lord Carter, felt that the perfectly open arrangement reached with the commercial company that he cited impugns the objectivity and professional approach for which ADAS is rightly known and respected. The arrangement is entirely consistent with the close co-operation that ADAS maintained with commercial companies before charges were introduced—for example, in the field of jointly sponsored demonstrations. His views will be deeply distressing to loyal and dedicated staff and I hope that he will reconsider them.
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene for a moment. The example that I gave is not the only one in the industry where such contracts have been entered into. If a private consultant were to consider such a contract, he would be barred from membership of the British Institute of Agricultural Consultants.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as things stand with ADAS, I feel that it has the highest integrity and I stand by my remarks on its behalf.
It is late and I apologise for not replying to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. Even though he gave me warning, one or two of his remarks—for instance those about the oil and fats tax—are slightly outside the terms of this debate. Quite frankly, I think I shall be on safer ground if I write to him.
To sum up, I should like to return to my initial theme of the importance of the issues that have been discussed tonight in terms of their potential to shape our future. As evidence of the Government's concern I would stress that the total public expenditure on R&D in the agricultural, horticultural, food and fisheries sectors will be over £200 million this year.
I am conscious that I have not spoken about the situation in Northern Ireland. I believe that there have been no financial reductions there for some time. I should like to say how much I enjoyed my brief visit to Northern Ireland this summer in connection with agricultural matters.
Going back to the £200 million spent this year, this represents major commitments by any standards. I do not think that it is unreasonable to look to industry and those who value the services we provide to increase their own contributions if they wish that level of
effort to be maintained in the future.

Coroners Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Commitee with amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at half-past nine o'clock.

  HONG KONG: REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENTS IN REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT
  HONG KONG: REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENTS IN REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT
  RELIGIOUS SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS: REPORT
  RELIGIOUS SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS: REPORT
  PET ANIMALS: EUROPEAN CONVENTION
  PET ANIMALS: EUROPEAN CONVENTION
  DIVIS AND UNITY FLATS, BELFAST: DEMOLITION
  DIVIS AND UNITY FLATS, BELFAST: DEMOLITION
  ENERGY GRANTS: PAYMENT IN NORTHERN IRELAND
  ENERGY GRANTS: PAYMENT IN NORTHERN IRELAND