Sitting of 8 December 1988

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
CITY OF LONDON (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL
Order for Third Reading read.
To be read a Third time on Thursday 15 December.
AVON LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL [LORDS]
(By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 15 December.
CITY OF GLASGOW DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions

  Oral Answers to Questions
  Mr. Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that in previous Parliaments there have been inquiries into the planting of parliamentary questions. Have you noticed the coincidence that today four questions on the Order Paper are in identical terms? Might this be a coincidence that you would consider inquiring into, Mr. Speaker?
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Further points of order will take up a great deal of time. I shall deal with the matter.
  Mr. Skinner: When?
  Mr. Speaker: I shall protect the hon. Gentleman.
  I do not know about the planting of questions. Questions that are in the same terms often appear on the Order Paper, and that is in order. It is unusual for them to come so high on the Order Paper.

  Oral Answers to Questions
    NATIONAL FINANCE

      Budget Tax Cuts
      Mr. Graham: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he can provide of the proportion of an average earner's 1988 Budget tax cut that has been absorbed by subsequent (a) water and electricity price rises, (b) mortgage interest rates and (c) interest on personal debt.
      Dr. Godman: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he can provide of the proportion of an average earner's 1988 Budget tax cut that has been
      420
      absorbed by subsequent (a) water and electricity price rises, (b) mortgage interest rates and (c) interest on personal debt.
      Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he can provide of the proportion of an average earner's 1988 Budget tax cut that has been absorbed by subsequent (a) water and electricity price rises, (b) mortgage interest rates and (c) interest on personal debt.
      Mr. Cummings: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he can provide of the proportion of an average earner's 1988 Budget tax cut that has been absorbed by subsequent (a) water and electricity price rises, (b) mortgage interest rates and (c) interest on personal debt.
      The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): As the hon. Members know, mortgage interest payments and nationalised industry prices are both reflected in the RPI. Since average earnings have risen faster than the RPI, it follows that the average earner has seen a rise in his standard of living even before any account is taken of the benefit of the tax cuts in this year's Budget.
      Mr. Graham: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer realise that in some parts of the United Kingdom the greatest cause of homelessness is mortgage default? Does he understand that many who bought their houses in good faith are being badly let down by him? How high must interest rates rise before he will admit that his policies are wrong? How many more people will have to be made homeless because of the right hon. Gentleman's incompetence?
      Mr. Lawson: I have three points to make to the hon. Gentleman. In the first place, the overwhelming cause of mortgage default is broken marriages. It is nothing to do with the mortgage rate. And that is a fact. The second point is that it is well known that interest rates, and therefore the mortgage rate, fluctuate. The third point which the hon. Gentleman ought to take into account—so should other Opposition Members—is that when interest rates go up, on one side certainly borrowers have to pay more, but on the other side savers are getting more too.
      Dr. Godman: What does the Chancellor of the Exchequer say to the average wage earner who received about £12 by way of tax cuts in the Budget, who since then has had to pay an extra £30 a month as a result of increased mortgage payments, leaving him and his wife and family £18 worse off? Should we blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the couple? May I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that it is his fiscal policies and other policies that are driving more and more Scots into the seductive but impotent embrace of the Nationalists?
      Mr. Lawson: I understand the acute problem posed to the Labour party by the Scottish National party in Scotland, I do not want to intrude into private grief and I shall not say anything more about that, but it does not really arise from the question anyway. As I pointed out, the average earner, fully taking mortgage rate increases into account, is better off today in real terms substantially, even before taking into account the tax cuts in the Budget.
      Mr. Griffiths: Is the Chancellor aware of the statement from the CBI which states: "We are consistently"—

      421
      [Interruption.] Is he aware of the statement from the CBI which states that it has consistently argued against the need for a price increase in electricity, which has inflicted so much harm on its members and export potential and also on over 20 million households in this country? How does the Chancellor justify forcing up electricity prices by more than 15 per cent. in 13 months?
      Mr. Lawson: Since the hon. Gentleman is interested in how business is doing, I shall quote to him, even though he is not permitted to quote to me. I shall quote to him if I may, because it is an important document, from the most recent quarterly regional business survey of the British chambers of commerce, which says:
      "Business remains buoyant"—
      and this takes full account of electricity rises—
      "Confidence is rising, turnover and profitability remains extremely strong … That confidence is being equally maintained when translated into investment activity"
      and so on. That is the state of business and industry today. I would hope that the hon. Gentleman would welcome it, because that comes from the people who are in business and industry and who know what they are talking about, unlike Opposition Members.
      Mr. Cummings: Having heard what the Chancellor has just said, what message can he send to home buyers in my constituency of Easington and home buyers elsewhere in the northern region who are subjected to the horrendous rise in interest rates, but who are earning less than the national average weekly wage? Those people therefore have not benefited from recent tax cuts. What message can he send to the 2,000 shipyard workers who have just lost their jobs in Sunderland and who are subjected to increased hardship because of the rise in home interest rates?
      Mr. Lawson: The problem of the shipyard workers in Sunderland has got nothing to do with interest rates. I am indeed sorry about the plight of the shipyard workers in Sunderland, but it is well known that there is gross over-capacity in the shipbuilding industry throughout the world. There is no way in which North East Shipbuilders Ltd. could be made into a profitable enterprise. Instead, we want to see new industries developing in the north-east. Taking the economy as a whole, I remind the hon. Gentleman that there are more people at work in Britain today than at any time in our history.
      Mr. Tim Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we had the misfortune to have a Labour Government, not only would water and electricity prices, and mortgage interest rates have risen, but income tax as well? Will he remind the House by how much the real take-home pay of the average earner has increased over the past nine years and compare that with the record of the last Labour Government?
      Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is making a very good point. Certainly for a married man on average earnings, with two children, his real earnings have risen during the period of this Government by 29 per cent. in real terms. Under the period of the Labour Government there was virtually no rise whatever. During the period of the Labour Government we had the lowest rate of growth of any Government since the war, the lowest rate of growth of productivity in manufacturing, the lowest level of
      422
      profitability and indeed a fall in manufacturing output. The only thing that they achieved highs for were inflation and taxation.
      Sir Michael Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend accept that this matter must be considered from all aspects? Will he remind us how much the taxpayer is saving by no longer having to subsidise the many loss-making nationalised industries?
      Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is quite right. There is a substantial saving in not having to subsidise loss-making industries now that these industries have been turned round and are in the private sector. Indeed, we are getting increasing income and increasing yield of corporation tax from those industries now that they are healthy and in the private sector.
      Mr. John Townend: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the north of England, where we have not had the ridiculous rise in property prices that people have had in the south, real increases in wages and tax cuts have made people infinitely better off? Will he resist the pressure from the Opposition Front Bench to increase taxes and continue to decrease taxes? Does he agree that the problem is a fall in the savings ratio and an increase in personal borrowing, and that increases in interest rates will encourage saving and discourage borrowing?
      Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend's understanding of the economy is absolutely correct. As for the regional dimension, he is right there too. The effect of a rise in interest rates, particularly now that the personal sector is a net borrower for the first time ever by a substantial amount, is most pronounced in the south-east, which is where the overheating is, and that shows how well directed that instrument of policy is.
      Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend point out to the prophets of doom on the Opposition Benches that, to the average earner, the most important thing is to stabilise and lower inflation, and that his policy, to anybody who understands it, is bound to have a lead time of anything between five and eight months? Those critics should keep quiet until we see the success of his policy some time in the new year.
      Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend to some extent flatters the Opposition by suggesting that they have a policy. If they do have a policy, I am sure that the Opposition Members on the Front Bench will seek to catch your eye in a moment, Mr. Speaker, to tell the House what it is, but their track record is one of total indifference to inflation and of allowing inflation to reach record levels. I share my hon. Friend's fear that if they were ever given the chance to get into office—which they will not be—they would do the same again. We, by contrast, will maintain low inflation. That is what we have done since we took office, and that is more important than anything else to the people of Britain, whether business men or private individuals.
      Mr. Beith: Will the Chancellor rule out now the tactic of using a further savage rise in interest rates early in the new year as a means of controlling overheating in the economy when there are so many other weapons that he could use—including measures to give tax relief on savings and to encourage the banks to slacken the credit explosion—which would not make him as dependent on interest rates as he has made himself?
      Mr. Lawson: Unlike the Labour party, which appears not to have any policy that it is prepared to avow, the Liberal party, or what ever it is now called—always has any number of policies or bright ideas. They are nearly all of them crackpot ideas and the electorate will see through them.
      Mr. Butterfill: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the price increases of public utilities during the last five years of the previous Labour Government were more than double those during the past five years of this Government? Electricity prices increased 170 per cent. during the last five years of the Labour Government whereas they have gone down in real terms under this Government.
      Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right. It is also the case that the average earner in Britain is better off in real terms than ever before, and that is what causes the Opposition such deep distress.
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: Inflation is higher now than when the Chancellor first started to attack it, and it comes ill from him to demand that we explain our policies when we see his policies in tatters. But I will not be uncharitable. Given the net loss of weekly income to mortgage holders set out in the Chancellor's helpful answer of 31 October to his right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour), how far would the Government have to reduce income tax to offset those losses, and what would be the effect of such a further reduction on interest rates?
      Mr. Lawson: What I will tell the hon. Gentleman is that the average earner is far better off now than he was a year ago, despite the increase in mortgage rates. The table was very precise. It did not take into account the increase in earnings. It did not take into account also the fact that there is a higher interest rate on savings—and people have savings too. So I am telling the hon. Gentleman that the average income and the average earnings of the average person in this country are higher than they were a year ago. I am not going to take lectures on inflation from the Labour party, when the average rate of inflation under Labour was 15½ per cent.—and not in one single month did it ever get it as low as it is today.

      Mortgages
      Mr. Blunkett: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his Department will commission research into the relationship between increases in base rates and levels of mortgage default.
      The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): No. A study by the Building Societies Association showed no correlation between interest rates and mortgage defaults and that the single most important cause of mortgage arrears is matrimonial breakdown.
      Mr. Blunkett: In view of the fact that between 1979 and 1987, of those accepted as homeless for whatever reason, mortgage defaulters rose from 4 to 19 per cent. of the total, does the Minister still believe, as the Government declared 18 months ago, that
      "Some people are still deterred by the costs and complications of house purchase. That is why we must look for new ways to make house buying simpler and easier"?
      424
      Does he believe that that statement, in the Conservative party election manifesto, has been helped, or hindered, by the Government's actions?
      Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that in the first six months of this year the number of people in arrears with their mortgage, or forced into having their property repossessed, though extremely small, was 19 per cent. down on the previous year. Another factor found by the Building Societies Association to be important in affecting the level of repossessions was unemployment. With the decline in unemployment, the number of repossessions has also fallen. We believe in making it easier for people to buy their own houses and we welcome those trends.
      Mr. Holt: Will my hon. Friend note that, despite the strictures of Opposition Members, the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) has just taken full advantage of the Government's legislation to purchase his own council house at a maximum 54 per cent. discount?
      Mr. Lilley: If that is the case, I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) on his good sense in taking advantage of the opportunities that we have created for all working people. I am proud that I million others have joined the hon. Gentleman in taking advantage of their right to buy.
      Mr. Frank Cook: Will the Minister note that the purchase of council houses by sitting tenants is not against Labour party policy and never has been? It has been possible to do so in Stockton on Tees since the early 1920s. If the Minister's right hon. and hon. Friends undertook any research, they would realise that their information is grossly distorted—like their mentality.
      Mr. Lilley: It would be interesting to know whether the hon. Gentleman joined so many of his right hon. and hon. Friends in voting against the right-to-buy legislation, which ensured that the majority of Labour authorities that did not grant the right to buy to their tenants were required to do so. His right hon. and hon. Friends would be embarrassed by this issue being raised.
      Mr. Dykes: Does my hon. Friend agree that home ownership on the current scale is one of the Government's outstanding successes and leaves the Labour party in a state of acute embarrassment on a constant basis? Does he also agree that the financial system is now strong enough to withstand any significant defaults next year, and that it is essential that those who are in difficulties with mortgage repayments should contact the relevant agencies before the problem develops into an unsolvable one?
      Mr. Lilley: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. He has returned to the original question, which concerns the burden of debt. Another great Labour party hypocrisy is to pretend to be concerned about debt, when a Labour Government burdened every household in this country with a level of debt far greater than that recently highlighted by the Citizens Advice Bureaux report.
      Mr. Chris Smith: Does the Economic Secretary recall that the Chancellor told the nation on London Weekend Television on 9 October, specifically in relation to the issue of mortgage default and repossessions, that he did not think that, with increasing interest rates, there would be more repossessions because families would have to spend

      425
      less on other things. Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the Chancellor said that, and does he not think that the remarks were deeply offensive to millions of homebuyers? What has he to say to those home buyers who budgeted sensibly in taking out their mortgages, who mortgaged themselves up to the hilt, cutting back on other expenditure, and who now have no fat in the family budget to cut out? What are they to cut out to meet the higher interest payments?
      Mr. Lilley: I agree with my right hon. Friend and disagree with the hon. Gentleman profoundly when he says that it is budgeting sensibly to mortgage oneself up to the hilt. To the extent that people have borrowed too much, and lenders have been unwise enough to lend too much, it is normal to accept—as most building societies do—that when there are difficulties in repayment because of changes in the interest rate, the mortgage can be prolonged, and that is why the level of repossessions is not related to the mortgage rate. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the report of the Building Societies Association, which says:
      "A careful examination of the statistics shows that there is no relationship between the level of mortgage rates and the level of possessions and arrears."
      Mr. Gow: Would it not add to the spirit of comradeship on the Opposition Benches if my hon. Friend were to publish in the Official Report a list of those Opposition Members and Labour councillors who have taken advantage of our right-to-buy legislation?
      Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is always doing his best to stir up unity in the Labour party. If it proves possible to carry out his request, I shall do so.

      Privatisation
      Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total sum raised from the privatisation programme from 1979 to date; and to what these revenues have been applied.
      The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): The net proceeds from privatisation since May 1979 amount to some £23½ billion.
      Mr. Barnes: Have not the revenues been used to stoke up a consumer-led import drive, which is helping to ruin the British economy, and have not consumers' assets been wasted in these nonsensical sales?
      Mr. Lamont: The answer to the first point is no and the answer to the second point is, equally, no. The result of privatisation has been that businesses amounting to about 45 per cent. of the public sector in 1979 are operating more efficiently and profitably than ever before.
      Mr. Burt: Is it not the case that the privatisation programme is proceeding apace throughout the world, that Socialist Sweden has returned 15 companies with a total turnover of £100 million to the private sector, and that only the Albanian-style Labour party is kicking against this trend?
      Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Privatisation programmes are being implemented in many countries in Europe, Asia and also North America. Yet only yesterday the Labour party recommitted itself to the
      426
      renationalisation of the water industry, which shows that it has not understood that privatisation is a programme that is immensely popular in this country.

      Contingency Fund
      Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he expects to allocate resources from the Contingency Fund in 1989–90 to (a) pensions and (b) education.
      Mr. McFall: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he expects to allocate resources from the Contingency Fund in 1989–90 to (a) pensions and (b) education.
      The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Major): I assume that the hon. Gentlemen are referring to the reserve. In the case of pensions, the answer is yes. Other allocations from the reserve will be made as the need arises.
      Mr. Campbell: Given the break in the earnings-linked update for pensions, is the Chancellor aware that pensions now are £11 lower for single people and £18 lower for married couples, which has given the Treasury a net saving of £5 billion a year? That has robbed British pensioners of £2,000 a year since 1979. How does the Chancellor feel about being voted the No. 1 Scrooge this Christmas by the pensioners?
      Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman's remarks are wholly misleading, for a variety of reasons. The first point that I want to make is that pensioners' average real incomes have risen by 23 per cent. from 1979 to 1986, compared with only 3 per cent. in real terms between 1974 and 1979. Frankly, we need no lectures from the hon. Gentleman, whose party, when in government, savaged pensioners' living standards.
      Mr. McFall: As skills shortages are believed to be the main impediment to the growth of industrial companies, and as a CBI survey shows that over 20 per cent. of industrial firms believe that skills shortages are the primary impediment to growth, why is it that in the White Paper published by the Secretary of State for Employment the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not see fit to allocate an extra penny from the contingency fund to further education and training?
      Mr. Major: Substantial increases were allocated to education and training in the recent public expenditure round. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that, in particular, there were substantial increases recently over the whole range of university and other education-related areas of expenditure.
      Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is only because of the increase in growth that has occurred as a result of the successful economic policies of this Government that there are extra resources and that we can have discussions about how they ought to be allocated?
      Mr. Major: That is right. There were substantial increases in a series of priority programmes during this year's public expenditure round.
      Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. Friend consider the significance of the figures that he has just given to the House? There has been a 23 per cent. increase in the real value of pensions, compared with the miserly sum that the

      427
      last Labour Government managed to give to pensioners. In particular, there are now more than 1 million additional state pensioners since this Government were elected in 1979. Will my right hon. Friend point out to the people of this country that it is possible to contemplate that a Government such as might emerge if the Labour party were elected would reduce the real value of pensions for state pensioners?
      Mr. Major: It is perfectly clear that in the event of there being a further hypothetical Labour Government, and of that Government being as successful as their predecessors, they would undoubtedly, given the increase in the number of pensioners in the last few years, reduce the living standards of pensioners. That is not taking into account the effect of inflation under the last Labour Government. The Opposition would do well to recall that they twice denied the Christmas bonus to pensioners and that a considerable number of pensioners suffered a negative loss on their hard-earned savings as a result of their policies.
      Mr. Ron Brown: Does the Minister not understand that today's sick society—also known as the "tick society"—suffers greatly because of Dr. Lawson's quack medicine? Pensioners in their droves in Scotland are backing the mass movement against the poll tax. That is something that the Government will have to face next year in Scotland—as well as in England, in due course.
      Mr. Major: My right hon. Friend's policies have led to eight successive years of quite substantial growth, which is both a creditable and a remarkable record. As for pensioners, the hon. Gentleman and all his hon. Friends have neglected to mention the further substantial assistance that has just been announced in respect of older pensioners. I should have thought that they would welcome that announcement.

      Charities (VAT)
      Sir Peter Emery: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will list the total level of value added tax estimated to be provided by charities during the forthcoming financial year and the amount provided by charities over the last five years.
      Mr. Lilley: I regret that this information is not available.
      Sir Peter Emery: This Government have probably done more than any other to encourage giving to charities, but does my hon. Friend not realise that they are suffering considerably after donations have been made because some leading charities are paying £1 million or £2 million more in VAT? Those who make donations to charities do not believe that their money should be used for that purpose. Will my hon. Friend ask the Chancellor to consider that matter when he is thinking about next April's Budget?
      Mr. Lilley: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks about the Government's policies to encourage charitable giving, and I pay tribute to him for his consistent interest in this issue. My right hon. Friend considered the possibility of a general VAT relief, but decided against it. First, it is inconsistent with and would not be permitted under European Community law, although specific reliefs might be. Secondly, my right hon. Friend decided that it
      428
      would be better to concentrate on encouraging the act of charitable giving, since it is clearly right that the amount of tax relief that a charity receives should be related to the amount of giving that it is able to attract. It is also good that, whereas £1 of VAT relief is worth just £1, an extra £1 of tax relief on the act of giving has a multiplier effect and encourages extra charitable giving.
      Mr. Rooker: What are the Government doing to distinguish between charities whose purposes we all understand and charities set up exclusively to avoid tax? What action are the Government taking to ensure that those charities are shut down?
      Mr. Lilley: From time to time measures are introduced in the Finance Bill to prevent the use of tax legislation as tax loopholes. Another safeguard is provided through the charity commissioners, who are required to examine the matter.
      Mr. Higgins: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are real difficulties in giving VAT relief to charities? Were not those dificulties recognised when the tax was introduced? Do not the compensation advantages in tax that were given to charities at that time, and continued by successive Conservative Governments for the same purpose, vastly exceed the actual cost to charities of VAT?
      Mr. Lilley: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Because of the benefits that we have given to charities and the inducement that we have given to encourage charitable giving, the amount of charitable giving has doubled in real terms since 1979.

      Group of Seven
      Ms. Mowlam: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to the current inflation rates of the member states of the Group of Seven leading industrialised countries.
      Mr. Norman Lamont: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall publish a table in the Official Report.
      Ms. Mowlam: In view of the Minister's response, will he tell the House when he expects Britain's inflation rates to fall into line with those of our competitors—this year, next year, or after the Chancellor leaves his job?
      Mr. Lamont: When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made a speech during the debate on the Loyal Address, he told the House when he expected the rate of inflation to peak and when he expected it to come down.
      Ms. Mowlam: When?
      Mr. Lamont: The hon. Lady knows that I would never make such a precise prediction. The inflation differential between this country and the G7 countries to which the hon. Lady referred in her question has been narrowing since the Government took office. Between 1974 and 1979, when the Labour Government were in office, the gap was 6½ points on average. Under the Conservative Government, it has been a mere 1·7 points. We intend to narrow the gap even further.
      Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the history of those countries, especially Germany, shows that any relatively open economy can adjust to high and rising rates of inflation? Does he further agree that while

      429
      Governments are pouring excess demand into the economy there will always be those who are unwise enough to applaud that because they personally enjoy its benefits? Does he also agree that the case against inflation is not economic, but social, because of the corrosive effect that it creates for all those who lose by inflation—whether council tenants, pensioners or savers?
      Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those who suffer most from inflation are those on fixed incomes, savers and the elderly. A major part of our recent inflation has been caused by our very fast rate of growth. Despite the advantages of that rate of growth, we must do justice to those who are disadvantaged by inflation. That is why we have acted promptly and are determined to bring down inflation. That is why we have a Budget surplus, which is the best possible background for bringing that about.
      Mr. Gordon Brown: Is the Minister aware that the Chancellor told both the House and the Treasury Select Committee last week that inflation would rise to 5·5 per cent. in 1989 if mortgage costs were excluded? Will he confirm that with mortgage costs included—a real burden that millions face—the new Treasury forecast is that inflation will rise towards 7 per cent. during 1989? Does he now forecast inflation rising above 7 per cent.? Will he say yes or no?
      Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman makes his calculations, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has published the figures both with and without mortgage costs being included. We are determined to bring down inflation and we have taken firm action to achieve that. The results of that policy will show fairly soon.
      Following is the information:

      Percentage increase in consumer prices over 12 months to October 1988

      Per cent

      United States

      4·2

      Japan

      1·1

      Germany

      1·3

      France

      3·0

      United Kingdom

      6·4 1(5·1)

      Italy

      4·7

      Canada

      4·21(4·2)

      1 Bracketed figure excludes mortgage interest payments.

      Source: OECD, Department of Employment.

      Company Profits
      Mr. Jack: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much in percentage terms company profitability has changed in the north-west of England in the last five years.
      Mr. Major: The net rate of return of non-North sea industrial and commercial companies in 1987 was two and a half times its level in 1982. I am glad to say that the north-west of England has fully participated in the economy's strong growth over the past six years.
      Mr. Jack: My right hon. Friend's answer will bring enlightenment and knowledge to the dark recesses of the Opposition Benches. Will he confirm that the growth in profitability has enabled Fox's Biscuits in my constituency to invest £14·5 million in a new factory which will create
      430
      400 jobs in the next five years? Will he further confirm that improved profitability has benefited company liquidity in the north-west with continuous extra investment?
      Mr. Major: I am delighted to hear of that particular investment by Fox's Biscuits. I had the opportunity of visiting United Biscuits at Stockport and was delighted to see how well that company was doing. It is true to say that there is a substantial degree of capital investment, most noticeably in manufacturing industry. That has contributed substantially to the fall in unemployment.
      Mr. Ashton: The Government have been in power for nine and a half years, not five years. For how much longer are we to see this charade of staged Conservative party political broadcasts using the best figures and the best times? Is it not a fact that if a company in the north-west made £1 profit in 1982, and now makes £2 profit, the Government would say that it had doubled its profits or increased its profits by 100 per cent.? For how much longer will we have to put up with phoney figures being trotted out in the House? Give us the figures since 1979.
      Mr. Major: I shall do better than that. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that private-sector investment in 1988 as a percentage of GDP is at the highest level since statistics were first collected.
      Mr. Goodlad: Has my right hon. Friend read the latest regional survey of the chambers of commerce of Manchester and Merseyside, showing the high level of confidence in future profitability? Is that not indicative of the state of the economy throughout the north-west?
      Mr. Major: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I have seen the survey and it shows, among other things, that expectations have risen in the third quarter over the second quarter.

      Confederation of British Industry
      Mr. Turner: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet representatives of the Confederation of British Industry; and what matters will be discussed.
      Mr. Buckley: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet representatives of the Confederation of British Industry; and what matters will be discussed.
      Mr. Lawson: This evening I shall be meeting the economic and financial policy committee of the CBI, where a wide range of subjects will be discussed.
      Mr. Turner: In view of the hostile resolution at the CBI conference—[HON. MEMBERS: " Reading."]—and the fact that the base rate increases—[Interruption.] I shall not give way. As, since May of this year, industry has lost £700 million in base rate increases, and manufacturing companies' overseas order books are the lowest since April as a result of the Government's sterling policy, why does the Chancellor not take the Edinburgh Hundreds?
      Mr. Lawson: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that he has been sadly misled by the brief which someone has handed to him. In fact, the CBI acknowledged that British business today is doing better than ever before. Manufacturing productivity has been rising faster in this country than ever before and faster, indeed, than in any

      431
      other major industrial country. Investment this year is running at some 12 per cent. growth in real terms—twice as fast as the growth in consumption and there will be further substantial growth in investment next year. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary pointed out a moment ago, private-sector investment this year as a percentage of GDP is at the highest level since figures were first collected in 1955.
      Mr. Buckley: Will the Chancellor take the opportunity tonight to dispel the fear of the chairman of the CBI, who is worried about the high interest rates that the Chancellor has brought into the economy? These are seriously undermining small companies. Is he aware that a £1 billion increase in costs to British industry is a direct consequence of the increase in interest rates that he has brought about since May? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, according to the CBI conference, his current policy is gravely undermining the Government's policy on business starts and expansion?
      Mr. Lawson: That is untrue. The CBI recognises that the Government's policy has provided a better climate for business and industry to prosper than ever before. It knows that profitability this year is expected to be at the highest level since 1960, and it knows, too, that the Government's insistence on getting inflation down is the most important safeguard for British industry in competing throughout the world.

    PRIME MINISTER

      Engagements
      Mr. Battle: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 December.
      The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning the Soviet ambassador called on me to deliver a message from President Gorbachev. Later I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today and will be addressing the annual meeting of the Per Cent Club.
      Mr. Battle: Knowing the Prime Minister's fondness for photo opportunities with British tanks, can she now tell the House that she is prepared to go for the British Challenger II tank, which is the best value for the Army and the best deal for the taxpayer? Such an announcement would reassure 14,000 workers that they will still have jobs after Christmas. Is she going to blast the Leeds tank industry in the way that she sank Sunderland's shipbuilding industry?
      The Prime Minister: A decision will be made on that by the end of the year. Naturally, the Army must have the best possible tanks for its purposes.
      Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 December.
      The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
      Mr. Oppenheim: Does my right hon. Friend agree that yesterday's troop reduction proposals by President Gorbachev, which have been warmly welcomed by one of
      432
      the Opposition's leaders as a great initiative, would never been made if the Government had followed the one-sided disarmament proposals advocated by the Opposition and CND?
      The Prime Minister: First, I am sure that the whole House would wish to join me in offering sympathy to the victims and the bereaved following the earthquake that afflicted the Soviet Union.
      I can tell my hon. Friend that we have welcomed the unilateral reductions in forces and armaments proposed by Mr. Gorbachev as an important step towards securing a better balance of forces in Europe, in view of the Soviet Union's present overwhelming superiority. But we need to keep the matter in perspective. Even after the reductions, the Soviet Union will have 41,500 tanks compared with 16,500 for NATO, 35,000 artillery pieces compared with 14,000 for NATO, and 7,400 aircraft compared with 4,000 for NATO. Therefore, there will still be a major asymmetry in the Soviet Union's favour. There is still much tough negotiating to do.
      Mr. Kinnock: First, I join the Prime Minister in offering our deepest sympathy to the people of Armenia at this time of great suffering and loss of life. I also strongly support the offer that she has made elsewhere to provide whatever help may appear to be necessary.
      Mr. Gorbachev has taken another major and historic step towards the time when the use or threat of force will no longer be an instrument of foreign policy. May I ask the Prime Minister to ensure that, in deeds as well as in words, her responses match President Gorbachev's realism and vision?
      The Prime Minister: First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his words at the beginning. We all join in extending sympathy to the Soviet Union. As he knows, we stand ready with the disaster relief unit at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to offer any help that we can. We have had an urgent request from the Soviet authorities for the use of thermal imaging equipment, which was used so successfully to locate people trapped under collapsed buildings in the Mexico earthquake. We have offered to assemble a team of London firemen, who were also used in Mexico, together with the equipment, and we stand ready to fly them out to the Soviet Union later today. We have also had many other offers which we shall follow up.
      With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman said, I described the remaining figures for conventional forces as a great asymmetry. As he is well aware, we were very anxious to get talks on conventional armaments going to try to secure asymmetrical disarmament. There is still plenty of scope to do that, and we shall be pursuing it together with NATO later.
      Mr. Grocott: It is mean-minded.
      The Prime Minister: It is very far from mean-minded. I am absolutely certain that President Gorbachev is very well aware that I am as determined to defend our way of life as he is to defend his. I repeat that the superiority of the Soviet armed forces over ours is more than two to one in their favour.
      Mr. Kinnock: President Gorbachev said at the United Nations:
      "We are witnessing the emergence of a new historic reality, a turning away from the principle of super-armament, to the principle of reasonable defence sufficiency."

      433
      Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to give us her view of what for Britain is reasonable defence sufficiency? Does it include the purchase of a new generation of nuclear weapons?
      The Prime Minister: It consists of making an accurate assessment of the nuclear, chemical and conventional weaponry, which the potential aggressor still has, and making certain that we are in a position to deter aggression. I am quite ready to believe—indeed, I already know—that the Opposition would throw away the defence of this country. The approach that I have described is the one that we shall follow. We shall look at the weaponry that they have and make certain that our defence is strong enough to deter.
      Mr. Hind: Does my right hon. Friend agree that British spending on defence is about 5·1 per cent. of gross national product, compared with 13 per cent. that the Soviet Union spends on defence? Does she agree also that President Gorbachev has made a virtue out of necessity in order to bring the standard of living of his people up to that enjoyed in the West?
      The Prime Minister: We all know that the proportion of GDP spent on armaments in the Soviet Union is greatly in excess of what any democratic country can do. Our own is about 4·2 per cent. of GDP. In the Soviet Union it is very much more. I believe that the proposals made by President Gorbachev at the United Nations were made genuinely to reduce conventional weapons and the dissymmetry on his side, and no doubt also because, quite naturally, he wishes to raise the standard of living of people in the Soviet Union. Our task is to make certain that we always have a sure defence while trying to extend the hand of friendship across the European divide.
      Mr. Ashdown: Will the Prime Minister assure the House that she recognises that President Gorbachev's remarkable speech yesteday could mark a significant historical turning point? Now that President Gorbachev's attention is rightly directed to the tragedy in his own country, I beg the Prime Minister to realise that she must use her influence to ensure that there is an effective and substantial response from Western leaders to maintain the momentum for international disarmament and to ensure that President Gorbachev's position in his own country is strengthened.
      The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, I was the first leader in the Western world to welcome Mr. Gorbachev's reforms. I welcomed them publicly because I believe that any possibility of enlarging freedom in the Soviet Union is to the advantage not only of the people there but of the whole world. I welcome the words that President Gorbachev used at the United Nations. He said:
      "The principle of freedom of choice is mandatory."
      I wish that all Opposition Members believed in that principle. He went on to say:
      "Freedom of choice is a universal principle that should allow for no exceptions."
      I agree with that, too. [Interruption.] I am responding. He went on:
      "The new phase … requires de-ideologising relations among states. We are not abandoning our convictions … but neither do we have any intention to be hemmed in by our values."
      I welcome all that. I was among the first to welcome his movement towards increased freedom and increased
      434
      responsibility, but always, as he knows, making certain that our defence is sure. I agree with my hon. Friends. It is because of that—and the same view is taken by NATO colleagues—that we have got far more disarmament than we ever could have thought possible.
      Mr. Churchill: In appreciation of President Gorbachev's most significant gesture at the United Nations yesterday, and out of humanitarian concern for the people of Armenia, will my right hon. Friend specifically offer an air-lifted field hospital and assistance from the Royal Engineers? Is she aware that the Manchester fire brigade would most certainly also wish to be associated with any civilian offer of thermal imaging and personnel?
      The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend probably heard earlier this morning, we will offer whatsoever we can to the limit of our ability. When we were informed of what they wanted, we responded immediately. The disaster relief unit in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is standing by. Our ambassador to Europe has already been to the Commission. We have already had offers of help from the British Red Cross, and it is in touch. We have already—[Interruption.] I am sorry that Opposition Members do not seem to be interested in the help that we are prepared to offer. We have already had—[Interruption.] We have already had messages and offers of help from surgeons in this country, who have said that they could quite easily put together an operating team, if that is needed, to relieve the stress and strain in the Soviet Union.
      Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 December.
      The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
      Mr. Clarke: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is genuine and widespread concern in Scotland about the way in which we deal with Scottish affairs in the House? Does she accept that there is to be a concentrated and orchestrated attack on Scottish Question Time, because 27 English Conservative Members have tabled questions for the next Scottish Quesion Time? That makes a mockery of the failure to provide a handful of hon. Members to allow the Scottish Affairs Select Committee to continue.
      The Prime Minister: Scottish Members play a very full part in all matters that are debated in the House. We are a united kingdom. I trust that the hon. Gentleman is not resiling from that. Is resiling from the United Kingdom a new Labour party policy? So long as we are a united kingdom, we should deal with our affairs as a united country.
      Sir Anthony Grant: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very much in the nation's interests that the Civil Service should maintain its traditional role of serving whichever Government are in power and that, if a civil servant wishes to pontificate on party political matters, he should resign from the service and stand for Parliament, like the rest of us?
      The Prime Minister: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that we get extremely good service from the Civil Service, which, in general, upholds the highest traditions of the service. If that is not so, it is a matter for the head of the Civil Service to deal with.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 12 DECEMBER AND TUESDAY 13 DECEMBER— Second Reading of the Electricity Bill.
At Ten o'clock on Tuesday the House will be asked to agree the Civil and Defence Votes on Account and the Winter Supplementary Estimates
Afterwards, motion relating to the Social Fund Cold Weather Payments (General) Amendment Regulations
WEDNESDAY 14 DECEMBER—Until Seven o'clock debate on a Government motion on British Shipbuilders.
Second Reading of the Transport (Scotland) Bill.
THURSDAY 15 DECEMBER— Second Reading Of the Security Service Bill.
Committee and remaining stages of the Petroleum Royalties (Relief) and Continental Shelf Bill.
FRIDAY 16 DECEMBER—Private Members motions.
MONDAY 19 DECEMBER—Until Seven o'clock, Private
Members motions.
Motion for the Christmas Adjournment.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Mr. Speaker, the House will wish to know it will be proposed that, subject to the progress of business, the House should rise for the Christmas Adjournment on Thursday 22 December until Tuesday 10 January.
Mr. Dobson: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement.
I welcome the Government's decision to provide two days of debate on the Bill to sell off the electricity supply industry, particularly as that will permit debate on the impact of the Bill on Scotland, although there should have been a separate Scottish Bill.
While welcoming the provision of time to debate the closure of the shipyards at Sunderland, may I ask the Leader of the House to reconsider the proposal to hold the shipbuilding debate before the commencement of the Second Reading debate on the Transport (Scotland) Bill, which is of sufficient importance to the people of Scotland to merit its starting and finishing at the normal times?
While on the subject of Scottish affairs, may I ask the Leader of the House to tell us what is happening about the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? As my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) said, 27 Tory Members have shown themselves to be so interested in Scottish affairs that they have put down questions for oral answer at the next Scottish Question Time. Surely this display of interest in Scottish affairs should lead at least a few of them to be willing to do their duty and serve on the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, which the Standing Orders of the House required us to bring into operation more than a year ago.
Will the Leader of the House tell us when the House will have an opportunity to debate the report of the Fennell inquiry into the King's Cross Underground fire, which has wide significance for the safety of passengers everywhere and for the respective responsibilities of managers,
436
regulatory inspectorates and the Government? I understand that the matter is to be debated in Government time in the House of Lords, and if the Government can find time for it in the other place, they ought to find time for it here.
Finally, will the Leader of the House confirm that any controversial Government legislation should, by tradition, be introduced in this House and not in the House of Lords? If so, can he guarantee that the Bill to introduce compulsory football club membership schemes will come before this House first? Some measures have gone through the other place first on the ground that their Lordships have special and direct experience of the topic in question. Surely the Government are not suggesting that the other place has special and direct experience of the shed at Stamford Bridge or the Stretford end at Old Trafford. This is an important measure and it should come first to the House of Commons, particularly because, as with many other Government measures, it impinges on the civil liberties of everybody, not just of those immediately concerned.
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman asked me five questions about next week's business, and I shall do my best to give him five answers. I am grateful for what he said about the Electricity Bill. It is for the convenience of the House that there should be a two-day debate, and I am pleased that I was able to arrange it. I am also glad that I was able to arrange a debate on British Shipbuilders, which, as I announced, is to be held next Wednesday. I regret that that means that the Transport (Scotland) Bill debate will start later than we had originally intended, but I think that, through the usual channels, we shall arrange for the debate to go on past its normal hour of 10 o'clock. I shall look at the matter again, but I do not undertake to make any other arrangements.
As I have already informed the House, it is my intention to have a debate on the Scottish Affairs Select Committee before Christmas, and it may be for the convenience of the House if I say that the debate is likely to take place on Tuesday 20 December.
The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that there is to be a debate next week in the other place on the King's Cross fire. It is an extremely important issue and I know of the hon. Gentleman's constituency concern. I cannot undertake to find Government time before the Christmas recess, but the question of a debate can be discussed through the usual channels. There are several occasions when this matter could be raised; for example, in the debate on Monday 19 December.
It must be for the Government to determine into which House a Bill is introduced. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's general constitutional judgment on these matters. The Bill to which he refers—the football Bill—has not yet been published and I am glad that he is anxious for us to make progress on this matter. I noted what he said, and I am happy for the matter to be discussed through the usual channels.
Sir Bernard Braine: My right hon. Friend will be aware that this week marks the 40th anniversary of the United Nations universal declaration of human rights. However, gross violations of human rights continue in many countries. In view of the implications for foreign

437
policy, and of the rising concern on both sides of the House about this abomination, will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on human rights?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise my right hon. Friend's concern—which probably goes back further than 40 years—for human rights wherever he finds them not being maintained. His record is second to none in the House. There will be opportunities to raise this question before the House rises for the Christmas recess. I am sorry to say that I do not believe that it will be possible to find Government time for a debate. As my right hon. Friend will know, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has written to all hon. Members on this very important matter.
Mr. James Wallace: I endorse the comments of the Father of the House, and I am disappointed by the right hon. Gentleman's reply.
The training White Paper announced this week said that training and enterprise councils would have large sums of money to dispose of and should have a clear framework for their operations. Will that involve a statutory framework, and do the Government propose to introduce legislation to implement this proposal?
What is the nature of the motion that the Leader of the House will ask the House to debate on 20 December about the Scottish Select Committee?
Mr. Wakeham: On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I am not at present able to announce the terms of the motion on the Scottish Select Committee. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concern and I shall do my best to table the motion in good time for hon. Gentlemen to study it before the debate.
There are a number of substantial issues in the training White Paper. There will be opportunities to debate many of the issues, especially on the Second Reading of the Employment Bill. Nevertheless, it may be possible to find time in the new year for a debate on the White Paper itself, but I would prefer to discuss that through the usual channels.
Sir Hal Miller: Will my right hon. Friend consider making arrangements for a Minister from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make a statement to the House before the recess? I notice from the Order of Questions that there will be no opportunity to question a Minister from that Ministry on the subject of the damage being done to the egg industry. I regret that the matter was treated with some levity in the House during questions on Monday. The egg industry is in a serious position because of the ill-considered—if considered at all—remarks of a junior Health Minister. Could a Minister from the Ministry explain to us the position of the nation's flock of poultry and the food value of the eggs that they produce?
Mr. Wakeham: I thought that when my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health answered questions on Monday he was correct. He gave serious answers to serious questions. My hon. Friend must try to keep this matter in perspective. I recognise the seriousness of the matter for the egg industry, but there is a serious health risk. There have been 46 reported outbreaks associated with eggs, and 9 billion eggs are consumed each
438
year. The problem must be put in that perspective. I shall, of course, refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Mr. Michael Foot: I reinforce what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) about the shocking proposal—if it has ever been a proposal—to start the football identity cards Bill in another place. Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that there was a debate in the House on that matter and that almost every speech, from both sides of the House, was against the Bill? The Bill infringes the civil liberties of British people, and the idea of introducing it in another place is absurd. Doing that will only add to the difficulties of getting any such measure through. Will the right hon. Gentleman, here and now, give us the undertaking that it will not be introduced in another place?
Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's assistance and guidance on how I can get my legislation through the House. I do not think that I can add to what I have said. If we look back to when the right hon. Gentleman was in government, we see that important legislation was started in the House of Lords. It is not constitutionally acceptable to say that that is not a proper thing to do. I have undertaken to have discussions through the usual channels, which I believe is the best way to proceed.
Dr. Alan Glyn: In view of recent events, will my right hon. Friend consider having a debate on international terrorism and on how best countries can combine to combat this terrible threat?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend raises an important matter. There was a debate on some of the issues this week, and there will be further stages of that legislation, when my hon. Friend will be able to raise points which he believes to be important. There will also be one or two other opportunities shortly when these matters could be raised. I wish that I could be more forthcoming.
Mr. Greville Janner: May I associate myself with the plea by the Father of the House for a debate on human rights? I know that the Jewish community in this country would wish to associate itself with the expressions of sympathy for the people who are suffering in the Soviet Union. I know, too, that other hon. Members would wish to raise the problems that remain for refusniks who are not allowed to leave and to plead with President Gorbachev that by the time he visits London—which we hope will be soon—there will be no further refusniks, and the Jewish people, along with all other minorities, will be able to practise their religions in freedom in the USSR.
Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for what he has said and I recognise the considerable part of his life that he has devoted to that particular issue. I am sorry that I cannot be more forthcoming about a debate on such matters, but I have no doubt that we shall find ways to raise them, quite properly, in the House.
Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: As the Anglo-Irish Agreement has been in existence for approximately three years and is currently under review, can my right hon. Friend say when he expects to find time

439
for the House to make a contribution to that review? As we shall consider the possibility of a setting up a Scottish Select Committee before Christmas, has he given any further thought to creating a Select Committee for Northern Ireland?
Mr. Wakeham: I have no specific proposals to put before the House for a Select Committee for Northern Ireland, but discussions are going on about other Northern Ireland matters and I am always willing to listen to any views that come from any part of the House. The Anglo-Irish Agreement has much potential to benefit all law-abiding people in both parts of Ireland and in Great Britain. As I have told the House before, my right hon. Friend is anxious to hear any views that hon. Members and others wish to put forward, and we accept that the House as a whole should have the opportunity to express its views. The review will continue over several months, and the best time for a debate is a matter of judgment.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Although I welcome the fulfilment, at long last, of the Leader of the House's promise for a debate on the Scottish Select Committee, I find it utterly objectionable that such an important Scottish matter should be treated in such a last-minute fashion by being debated just before the Christmas recess. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the motion that he tables will be a positive one and that it will refer to the clear breach of Standing Orders by the failure to provide a Select Committee for Scotland.
Mr. Wakeham: I give the undertaking that it will be a positive motion, and I believe that it will be a suitable basis for debate, but I cannot go into the terms of it at the moment.
Mr. Bill Walker: When my right hon. Friend considers the terms of the motion— I know that he will give serious consideration to it—on the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, will he bear in mind that more than eight out of 10 taxpayers living in the United Kingdom live in England and that those taxpayers have an interest in what happens in all of the United Kingdom, as do the Members representing their constituencies? Will he also bear in mind that the vast majority of tourists who visit Scotland come from England and that we Scots want the terms of the motion to make it clear that the United Kingdom is an integral and important part of this unitary Parliament?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend makes some extremely valid points. I hope that he will be able to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and have the opportunity to develop them in the debate that will take place. I cannot give any further indication of the exact terms of the motion, but I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) have said.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I make a valid point on behalf of all Back Benchers of all parties? Can it possibly be true that Back-Bench rights have been eroded to the extent that the Consolidated Fund Bill debate now starts at 10 o'clock? There used to be a time when the Consolidated Fund debate was sancrosanct, other than when there were the most urgent statements, which Mr. Speaker approved, and it started at 3.30 pm. Our rights were then eroded by the Adjournment debate and now we
440
have private Members' business and the Adjournment debate followed by the Consolidated Fund debate starting at 10 o'clock. Are Back-Bench rights to be upheld, or not?
Mr. Wakeham: Compared with some of the questions that the hon. Gentleman has asked me, that is a fair one and I shall do my best to give him an answer. It is not unprecedented for the Consolidated Fund debate to start at 10 pm. The business that I have announced has been arranged for the general convenience of the House. I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates that it is not always possible to satisfy the demands of each and every Member. I recognise that the present arrangement is not totally convenient.
Mr. Michael Latham: May I raise with my right hon. Friend a matter that I have raised on several occasions over the past two years and on which nothing discernible has been done? It is disgraceful that many of our constituents have to queue in the rain or in cold weather to get into the House. This happens day after day. It is their Parliament and they want to visit it. Will my right hon. Friend please read early-day motion 133, which is supported by hon. Members of both sides of the House?
[That this House is ashamed of the conditions in which parties of constituents visiting Parliament are required to wait; notes that they often have to wait for lengthy periods unprotected from rain or cold at the Norman Porch; recognises that a combination of lack of space at the Norman Porch and of the existence of only one security screening machine means that there is nothing that the staff on duty can do to alleviate these deplorable conditions and demands that an alternative system be introduced; recommends that consideration be given to entry by the foot-gate to Westminster Hall at the car park end where there is space for our constituents to wait in the dry and where there is room for a better screening system; and points out that many of these parties are of elderly people or school children who have to remain in wet clothes for the rest of the day.]
Let us have no more procrastinating on this matter. If the other place will not do anything about it, let us start the line of route in Westminster Hall.
Mr. Wakeham: I am sorry that my hon. Friend is disappointed. I recognise that there has not been much progress to meet his point. Discussions are taking place between both Houses with the aim of arriving at mutually acceptable arrangements to improve admission to the line of route. I am sure that the possibility of reversing the route will be considered. I am aware that that is referred to in an early-day motion.
Mr. Martin Redmond: Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that the football identity card that is being talked about will be discussed only in this Chamber as a provision in a hybrid Bill?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot give any such undertaking to the hon. Gentleman. The rules of order are not primarily matters for me. I am sure that the Government will proceed in due order.
Mr. Harry Greenway: I ask my right hon. Friend for an early debate on local government finance. I wish to raise in the House the difficulties of several hundred of my constituents who have been summonsed by Ealing council to pay their rates, although

441
they have been paid already. They include old people, disabled people and many extremely poor people. The fact that they are required to pay a £22 summons fee for rates that they have paid already is causing the greatest fury. There should be an early debate in the House in view of this injustice.
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend will have noted that next Monday there will be two opportunities which, with his usual ingenuity, he could use to raise the matter that he has drawn to the attention of the House.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Opposition Members cannot understand the difficulties of the Leader of the House in establishing a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Surely the past 18 months have provided sufficient time to frame an appropriate motion. When the right hon. Gentleman starts to find Conservative Members to serve on the Committee, will he take into account the nature of the questions that were tabled for this month's Scottish questions? It gave great offence to the people of Scotland that none of the questions tabled by Conservative Members related to the fiasco of the conditional benefit system, to low pay for the young, to the regrading of nurses, which was a disgrace to the Government in the eyes of those in Scotland, to mounting debt, whether in respect of mortgages or rents, and to all the other issues that are of genuine concern to the people of Scotland. Most of the questions by Conservative Members were about how they and their pals could get their snouts into the trough at the expense of the people of Scotland. Will the right hon. Gentleman take these factors into account when choosing Conservative Members to serve on the Committee?
Mr. Wakeham: The setting up of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is more complicated than the hon. Lady would have us believe. The Labour party was unable—I understand why—to accept the proposals that I put to it. If it had accepted them, the Committee would have been set up a long time ago. I cannot accept what the hon. Lady said about Scottish questions. It is in order for Members on both sides of the House to ask questions of any Minister. Some questions, such as those on the Forestry Commission, can be answered only by Scottish Ministers.
Mr. Hugo Summerson: Bearing in mind that London's streets are becoming more and more choked by traffic, we urgently need a clear policy statement by the Government on ways of dealing with the problem. Such a policy will have to prevent private cars from coming into London and provide for a huge increase in efficiency in public transport. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on this matter as soon as possible before the streets of the capital become clogged completely and nothing can move?
Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that my hon. Friend could raise that matter during the Consolidated Fund debate or during the debate on the Adjournment motion on 19 December. I recognise the importance of the matter that he has raised, and I shall refer it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am always reluctant to curtail business questions. I shall call those hon. Members who have been seeking to intervene.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Leader of the House give us an idea of his thinking on the motion that he is to table on Tuesday 20 December? It is extraordinary that, having gone through this great episode, we have not so far seen the terms of the motion. Will it be a positive motion, along the lines that the Leader of the House wants to set up a Select Committee? Will it be possible to amend it? Will he give us some straight talking rather than the obfuscations that we have embarked upon so far?
Mr. Wakeham: It will be a positive motion and it will be possible for it to be amended, as I understand it.
Mr. Ron Brown: As the Lord Advocate has made it clear that he will not say whether the poll tax, or community charge, is legal, in other words whether it contravenes the 1707 Treaty of Union, may we have a debate to discuss the issue, bearing in mind that that individual is not responsible to the House, and also that back home in Scotland working-class people, Socialists, trade unionists and others are fighting back against the Government and against a regressive tax which they do not accept?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. His premise is not accepted for one minute. However, I shall refer the matter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. If the hon. Gentleman's question needs an answer, he will get one.
Mr. Paul Boateng: Now that the English rate support legislation has passed through the House at a cost of some £8·8 million to the hard-pressed ratepayers of Brent, will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement in the House on the unique service of a section 114 notice by the director of finance of the London borough of Brent? Will he ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make a statement about Brent's financial crisis and whether he will meet the Members of Parliament of all parties who represent Brent, and also Brent's leadership, to resolve the crisis and return to the people of Brent some of the £52 million that the Government have taken from Brent since 1979?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept anything that the hon. Gentleman has said in his question. However, I understand why he asked it in that way. I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. It is likely that he may wish to make a statement on the rate support settlement, but not necessarily on the point that the hon. Gentleman raised.
Mr. Richard Caborn: Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to make a statement next week on the Coventry Four? As the right hon. Gentleman will know, many Opposition Members were very concerned in 1984 and 1985 when that case went through the courts. Reports in yesterday's Guardian, and an article in today's Guardian headed
"Fresh facts support PM's critic",
contain serious allegations that the Government are breaking the United Nations arms embargo on South

443
Africa. The allegations also state that daily reports were given to No. 10 by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and that for diplomatic reasons the South Africans were aided and abetted to leave Britain. I am sure that the Prime Minister, because of her recent speeches about terrorism, should come to the House to clear her name by saying that the allegations are wrong.
Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept for a minute that there is any necessity for the Government to say anything more. I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's point to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: When the Leader of the House consults through the usual channels on the football identity card legislation, will he bear in mind that at a meeting of the all-party committee on football yesterday the crackpot idea of identity cards caused controversy between Labour Members and Conservative Members and was highly controversial among Conservative Members as well? Will he also bear in mind that that committee, which meets regularly and discusses the problem, is overwhelmingly composed of Members of this House? It would seem, therefore, that before the Bill is introduced in the other place, their Lordships should be suitably advised by those of us from this place who know what we are talking about on this issue.
Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept the constitutional point that is implied in the hon. Gentleman's question. Nor do I accept that just because a Bill is controversial the Government have got it wrong. The Government have introduced many highly controversial Bills, which have become Acts of Parliament which have brought great benefits to the country, but which have not necessarily been introduced in the House of Commons.
Mr. Frank Haynes: The Leader of the House will be aware that tomorrow we are to have a debate on the multi-fibre arrangement. Can we really have such a debate when, for the Government, it will be no more than a talking shop? We want a debate and some action, because 1,200 jobs in Mansfield and Ashfield have been lost over a few weeks. We want to know what the Government will do about the hosiery and knitwear industry, which, since 1979, they have halved. We want hosiery and knitwear jobs in our constituencies. We want to save the industry. Let us have a debate during which the Government will make some promises to save the industry.
Mr. Wakeham: We are to have a debate tomorrow in which I hope the hon. Gentleman will take part, and, if possible, I shall listen to what he has to say. However, I can guarantee that a Minister will set out the Government's position, and that he will listen to and answer hon. Members' points.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will the Leader of the House return to the question of Mr. Haseldine, the Foreign Office official? May we have a statement from a Foreign Office Minister making clear whether proceedings under the Official Secrets Act are seriously contemplated against that individual? Will he at least pass on the message that such proceedings would be met with a sense of outrage by many Opposition Members?
Mr. Wakeham: I find that remark somewhat curious. Mr. Haseldine has been suspended on full pay from his
444
duties and the Foreign Office is investigating the matter. If a disciplinary offence has been committed, the available disciplinary penalties range from admonition to dismissal, and it would not be proper for me to comment further at this stage.
Mr. Jimmy Hood: Will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to give the House a report next week on the ballot rigging in the Nottinghamshire coalfield, where a branch secretary, Mr. Stephen Knowles, was found to be interfering in the ballot on the wages issue and has since been relieved of his job as the branch secretary?
Mr. Wakeham: I doubt whether my right hon. Friend will make a statement on that, because it is not a matter directly for him. Nevertheless, I shall refer it to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Alan Meale: Bearing in mind the needs of the elderly and the fact that thousands of pensioners die every month at this time of the year, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate before the recess on that subject so that we can try to find some solutions before more pensioners die?
Mr. Wakeham: On the face of it, I should have thought that the debate that I announced for Tuesday would be appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to make the points that he wishes.
Mr. Harry Ewing: May I try to use my persuasive powers on the Leader of the House to encourage him to find time for a debate on an important subject—the offer made by Mr. Gorbachev on the reduction in troops and tanks? Can the House be given an opportunity soon to debate what the United Kingdom's response should be as part of the Western Alliance's response to the offer made by President Gorbachev? This is an historic and important matter and the House should be given an opportunity to express its view.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that this is an important matter. I cannot promise a debate in the immediate future, but the House will want to debate that and I shall bear the hon. Gentleman's point in mind.
Mr. Tony Banks: While I would not describe the Leader of the House as the Vinny Jones of the Dispatch Box, he has gone right over the ball on the football identity card scheme. Surely the point is whether the legislation is controversial, not whether it is important, and this is controversial legislation. If the Leader of the House is not prepared to have the Government change their mind about introducing that legislation in this place, may we at least have a debate so that their Lordships will know how the House feels about the proposals?
Mr. Wakeham: When the hon. Gentleman wears that smart tie, he seems to be more aggressive than usual. I think that he calls himself an agency Whip these days. Surely I cannot be more friendly than to say that I shall have discussions through the usual channels. The hon. Gentleman is getting over-excited.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Education and Science to make a statement revealing who will pay the running costs of any city technology college built in

445
Bradford? Is the Leader of the House aware that yesterday the chairman of Dixons told me that he had no intention of paying the running costs, which will be more than £1 million a year? If it is to be taxpayers' money, it will mean £1 million a year less for renovation and repairs urgently needed by existing schools. If Bradford ratepayers are to be left to pick up the bill, it is monstrous that they should not be given an opportunity to say whether they want a college. Will the Leader of the House sort out that mess before next Tuesday's meeting of Bradford council, at which the matter is to be debated?
Mr. Wakeham: No, I cannot promise to do that. The hon. Gentleman, one of the Bradford Members, is also one of the bad losers in the House. I shall refer his serious point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, and if there is a need for a statement he will certainly make one.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to come to the House next week to make a statement on the Department's refusal to co-operate with Birmingham city council and the fire brigade following the disclosure a couple of weeks ago that two dozen men were living in what was alleged to be a hostel but was in fact a wooden and corrugated iron shed, the landlord of which was being paid £55 a week per person by the Department? The fire brigade has since closed down and condemned that hostel.
The investigators asked the Department, which was paying out more than £1,000 for the premises, for which other premises it was paying out such sums of money so that they could investigate their safety. They did not ask the claimants' names, only for addresses, but the Department refused to give that information. That hostel was located in Hay Mills in Birmingham and it is alleged that the social security office recommended the claimants to take a bed in a hut in a garden.
Mr. Wakeham: I am not in a position to confirm what the hon. Gentleman has said, but if the matter is as he puts it, it does not sound satisfactory. I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend. We shall then decide how best to proceed, and I shall be in touch with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the Leader of the House aware that, despite a procedural block, I have managed to table a series of questions relating to the Coventry Four? Will he assure me that Ministers will answer those questions in detail, if only because public opinion will want to know what happened, and the more the Government choose to equivocate in their answers, the more suspicion they will leave in the minds of the British people?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman puts his point of view, but my right hon. Friends will answer the questions in the way that is appropriate and right. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his advice.
Mr. William McKelvey: Will the Leader of the House acknowledge that Opposition Members have conducted themselves in a dignified and patient manner with regard to the Select
446
Committee on Scottish Affairs? Will a positive motion be tabled on this matter next week, I hope in Government prime time—
Mr. Wakeham: Yes.
Mr. McKelvey: I am glad that the Leader of the House acknowledges that. Does he understand that if a solution is not found, the dignified patient approach that many of us have taken may disappear?
Mr. Wakeham: I hope that there was not meant to be any element of threat in the hon. Gentleman's remarks, because that would not be the way to proceed. I make no complaint about the views of the hon. Gentleman or of his right hon. and hon. Friends. The hon. Gentleman knows the difficulties involved in setting up the Select Committee, and so do I. I have offered solutions and time for debate; but my solutions were not acceptable to the Opposition, nor was the time that I allowed for debate. I think that I can now provide proper time for a debate. The right process is to have that debate and to see whether the matter can be resolved, one way or another. That will be for the House to decide.
Mr. Sam Galbraith: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the method by which oral questions are selected? Is he aware that in yesterday's ballot for Scottish questions, those by Conservative Members could be identified because they were on different coloured paper? That made it difficult for selection to be completely random. I am sure that the Leader will want to condemn that practice. May we have a debate on that matter?
Mr. Wakeham: I would also condemn any suggestion that those responsible for selecting questions do not conduct themselves in a proper and efficient manner. I acknowledge that not only must selection be done properly, but that both sides of the House must be satisfied that that is so. I shall make inquiries.
Mr. David Winnick: Is it not a matter of public anxiety that there is so much Prime Ministerial pressure on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to appease the apartheid regime that an information officer at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office came to the conclusion that he was willing to sacrifice his career because he believed that the truth ought to be told? Should not the Prime Minister, or at least the Foreign Secretary, make a statement before the recess, and is it not the case that, once the new Official Secrets Bill becomes law, the official in question will have no defence in claiming public interest?
Mr. Wakeham: The difference between the hon. Gentleman and me is that I like to express views when I know the facts, whereas he prefers to express views when he does not know the facts. The matter is being investigated and I have nothing further to say.
Mr. Alex Salmond: The Leader of the House will be aware of the critical nature of the Council of Ministers meeting on fisheries this weekend, given that thousands of jobs are at stake. What provision will be made next week for an early statement or, better still, a debate, bearing in mind that last week's debate was severely truncated and that the ministerial responses were completely inadequate?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has made an important point. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food may wish to make a statement early next week if that is deemed appropriate. I shall certainly find time for one if that is what he wants.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement tomorrow, or early next week, about the fire aboard the P and 0 ferry European Endeavour at half past 10 last Friday? That fire raged for three hours and was the result of all the cost cutting, fatigue and incompetence of the scab crews. Is it not high time for a statement and a debate on that matter? Despite Zeebrugge and all that happened there, P and 0, which lined the pockets of the Tory party, is getting away with nigh on murder. It is the third fire since the strike and the lock-out began. Surely to God there should be an inquiry into the matter.
Mr. Wakeham: Yes, but I do not know what good it would do the hon. Gentleman, who approaches these matters with an open mouth and his eyes and ears shut.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House consider allowing a debate on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office matter? Some right hon. and hon. Members have no confidence in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's ability to do anything other than cover up Mr. Haseldine's allegations. If one was to translate his allegations to the situation concerning Father Ryan, it would mean that four of South Africa's most wanted terrorists, who were here to get arms to use to maim and butcher black people, were released with the connivance of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to return to their county, having had serious criminal allegations made against them, for the convenience of the Prime Minister because she was about to meet the hated Botha, the representative of the apartheid regime. There is a strong case to answer and many right hon. and hon. Members have no confidence in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office doing anything but shoving this dirt under the carpet.
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman makes his wild accusations, but impresses no one except his hon. Friend who sits on his right. I have indicated that it is a disciplinary matter and that it is being investigated in the proper manner. It is right that I should say nothing further.

Consolidated Fund Bill
4.15 pm
Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make about the arrangements for the debate on the motion for the Adjournment, which will follow the passing of the Consolidated Fund Bill on Monday 19 December.
Right hon. and hon. Members should submit their subjects to my office not later than 9 am on Thursday 15 December. A list showing the subjects and the times will be published later that day. Normally, the time allotted will not exceed one and one half hours, but I propose exercising discretion to allow one or two debates to continue for longer, up to a maximum of three hours.
Where identical or similar subjects have been selected by different right hon. or hon. Members whose names are drawn in the ballot, only the first name will be shown on the list. As some debates may not last the full time allotted to them, it will be the responsibility of right hon. and hon. Members to keep in touch with developments if they are not to miss their turn.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You gained the Chair with the good will of us all, and not least among the many reasons was that you said that you would be the protector of Back-Benchers' rights. In the opinion of one hon. Member—myself—you have done your best over many years to do so.
There is a non-party issue for the House of Commons to consider. Is it proper that the Consolidated Fund Bill—which until recent years was considered sacred and a time when some of your predecessors would not even allow statements at 3.30 pm because they felt that the Consolidated Fund should start straight away—should be eroded gradually and by a trickle, first, by Adjournment debates, then by long statements, and now by starting at 10 o'clock at night? Several right hon. and hon. Members feel that they are being given even less opportunity to raise matters in prime time. This is a matter that you, Mr. Speaker, ought to consider as a matter of principle.
Mr. Speaker: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern, but, as the Leader of the House said, it is not unprecedented. The Consolidated Fund Bill gives Back-Bench Members a precious opportunity to raise matters of interest to them, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman should draw the matter to the attention of the Procedure Committee to see whether, in future, a definite arrangement can be made to ensure that Back-Bench time is preserved.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the business statement—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall deal with points of order on the business statement after the statement by the Secretary of State for Wales.

Welsh Rate Support Grant 1989-90
4.17 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Welsh rate support grant report 1989–90 and the supplementary reports for 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89, which I have today laid before the House.
I am today announcing the details of the 1989–90 settlement to the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance. Copies of the text of my statement to the consultative council, together with a number of key statistical tables, have been placed in the Library of the House.
As required by the Rate Support Grants Act 1988, in each report total expenditure—a crucial factor in determining entitlement to block grant—has been treated for each authority as equal to a "relevant amount" determined according to specific rules, and based on information with me by 6 July 1988.
The supplementary reports for 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89 update grant entitlements and are intended to be the final reports for those years. Authorities have been notified of the total expenditure figures on which the reports are based, and it has been open to them—and remains open to them—to make representations about the figures that I have used. If, under the rules, I am able to agree that an authority's expenditure figure should be changed, that authority's grant entitlement will be recalculated accordingly.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State announced my proposals for 1989–90 to the House in July, and these have since been the subject of consultations with the local authorities and their associations. In making the report, I have taken account of the views that they have expressed.
The main elements of the 1989–90 settlement are as follows. Provision for relevant expenditure will be set at £2,057·8 million, some £124£7 million or 6·5 per cent above 1988–89 budgets and 8·6 per cent. above relevant provision. Provision for current expenditure is set at £1,785 million, an increase of £86·6 million or 5·1 per cent above 1988–89 budgets and 8·8 per cent. above current provision. Aggregate exchequer grant is set at £1,316 million, an increase of £63 million or 5 per cent. above the amount made available for 1988–89, and £68·6 million or 5·5 per cent. over the amount to be paid out in respect of 1988–89. Specific and supplementary grants total £267 million. Domestic rate relief grant remains unchanged at 18·5 p in the pound, and in aggregate is £27 million. Block grant totals £1,021·9 million, an increase of £50·7 million or 5·2 per cent. over the amount paid in respect of 1988–89. It is fixed at this level.
The final year of the rate support grant system will be 1989–90, and in the interests of stability—and with the full agreement of the local authority associations—I have decided to retain the same block grant mechanisms as those used in the present year. Certain minor changes in methodology have, however, been made at the request of the associations.
The settlement provides stability and it also provides a firm indication of grant entitlement. Authorities will know when they are setting their budgets what they will receive
450
in the way of grant support. It is a realistic settlement which enables councils in Wales to contribute to the accelerating economic and social regeneration of the Principality. I am sure that they will do so in a responsible manner by keeping control of spending, budgeting for the low rate rises that are clearly attainable and continuing their encouraging progress towards greater efficiency. They know that this is in the interests of their ratepayers and their electors. I fully expect them to grasp the opportunity.
Mr. Barry Jones: The Secretary of State mentioned 5 per cent., but 10 per cent. is more like the real figure. The statement is a clever sleight of hand. Its flaw is that it ignores the rise in inflation and interest rates. Current expenditure is £37 million short and districts will find that they are £7 million down on block grant. Worse, block grant declines as a proportion of the aggregate Exchequer grant. The Government still dictate on specific grant, and the casualties will be housing benefit administration, schools services, environmental health, recreation and leisure services and the crucial local authority efforts in economic development to create jobs. It will be hard to keep rate rises down to reasonable levels.
Is the Secretary of State aware that the settlement is very unsatisfactory and that much has changed since the July statement? The Government say that a settlement based on a GDP deflator at 4 per cent., RPI at a similar 4 per cent. level and interest rates at 9·5 per cent. is still sufficient to meet the needs of local government. However, the GDP deflator is now an estimated 5 per cent., inflation is 6·4 per cent., and forecast to rise to 8 per cent. next spring, and interest rates are 13 per cent. Is that not a definition of strain on local authority budgets?
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State for Education and Science has proposed a 5·1 per cent. pay settlement for teachers next year. Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that, as teachers' pay constitutes more than a quarter of most county budgets, the difference between the provisional 4 per cent. and 5·1 per cent. is very significant? The Secretary of State said just now that, if under the rules he was
"able to agree that an authority's expenditure figure should be changed, that authority's grant entitlement will be recalculated accordingly."
I know that the Secretary of State is aware of the concern in Cardiff. The city council met every requirement—and better—yet it stood to lose £2·3 million as a result of the retrospective arrangements that were announced on 7 July, which were then legalised in the recent Rate Support Grants Act 1988. I must also report to the House that Torfaen borough was a major victim and lost more than £300,000.
Is the Secretary of State aware that the aggregate figures will not be sufficient to cover the increasing cost of preparing for the implementation of the poll tax and meeting the requirements of homelessness? I want to make a plea to the Secretary of State for a rethink by the Welsh Office on this defective settlement, on the ground that, with inflation at 6·4 per cent. now and estimates that in 1989 it will be 7 per cent. or even 8 per cent., inflation will push spending well above the Government's proposed figures. I understand that even the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks that inflation may rise as high as 9 per cent. in August 1989. This is the last rate support grant settlement and, like all of them since 1980, it is unsatisfactory, to say the least.
Mr. Walker: I admire the courage of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) in putting those views because the rate support grants for which I have been responsible have been very different from those that were drawn up before this Administration came to power—[Interruption] Here we go. During the last three years of the Labour Government, at the time when the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside was at the Welsh Office—
Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that the subject that we are now discussing is, specifically, the statement that the Secretary of State made to the House? You would restrict us to questions on the statement, so surely the rules of the House and the rules that govern you require the Secretary of State to restrict his remarks to the precise terms of the statement.
Mr. Speaker: That is correct, but the right hon. Gentleman is answering questions that have been put to him.
Mr. Walker: I intend to make the comparison between our record and that of the Labour Government. I understand why Opposition Members want to do anything to stop that comparison being made. The comparison is simply that, in the last three years of the Labour Government, rate support grant fell by 16 per cent. in real terms. Had that trend continued, the rate support grant today would be £640 million, not £1,049 million. Therefore, if we had followed their example, Wales would receive £409 million less than it is receiving. Opposition Members have no right to ignore those comparisons.
To summarise, as a result of this year's and last year's rate support grants, the 8·8 per cent. increase in current provision for 1988–89 has to be considered alongside the 8·2 per cent. increase in gross capital provision, giving a combined increase of 8·7 per cent. over 1988–89 and no less than 15·4 per cent.—or £298 million—over the two years in which I have been responsible for the settlement. By any standards, this is a reasonable and sensible settlement.
I hope that it will also be recognised throughout the Principality that, as a result of the settlement, 67 per cent. of the cost of local authority expenditure in Wales comes from central Government and 19 per cent. from non-domestic rates in the form of business rates. Only 14 per cent. of all local government expenditure in Wales comes from domestic ratepayers. There are other parts of the United Kingdom that would like to be in that position.
Sir Anthony Meyer: Is it not clear that, as expected, my right hon. Friend has managed the best settlement possible for Wales? Is it not also clear that the question whether there have to be substantial rate rises will largely depend on the ability of local authorities to concentrate on doing the jobs that they were elected to do and in standing up to claims from public sector unions?
Mr. Walker: That is certainly true. There is scope for that. I am grateful to the local authorities in Wales for looking into the Audit Commission's proposals. It pointed to a potential saving of £40 million. I know that good work is being done in that direction. The increase in interest rates does not necessarily result in a similar increase in costs for local authorities. The 3 per cent. increase so far in interest rates has resulted in a 0·91 per cent. increase in the pool rate for local authorities. Much of their
452
borrowing is on fixed terms. We believe that this is a reasonable and sensible settlement. Prudent and sensible local authorities will have perfectly reasonable rate levels.
Mr. Richard Livsey: Does the Secretary of State not realise that the economic goal posts have moved since last July to nearly 6·5 per cent.? That must surely have an effect on local authority budgets in Wales. What allowance has he made for the poll tax set-up costs? We understand that only 50 per cent. of those costs are to be allocated to councils, which I regard as completely inadequate. What is the Secretary of State doing about Tai Cymru's budget, now that the district councils have practically no housing functions left to them? When does he expect to make an announcement? Capital expenditure in some of the rural counties is very tight indeed, particularly because of bridge repairs, such as those in Powys where half the bridges need attention. Is the Secretary of State making any allowance for that and for sparsity factors?
Mr. Walker: I repeat that, taking the two years for which I have been responsible, the total increase has been substantial. It will provide important assistance for all the tasks that need to be done. The inflation of 6·4 per cent. in recent months is mainly due to the increase in the mortgage interest rate. That does not have an effect on the retail prices index as it affects local authorities. Therefore, it is not a fair comparison.
Mr. Gwilym Jones: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, which I am sure will be widely welcomed in Wales. Once again he has achieved for Wales a far better settlement than has been achieved for England. May I take it that his reference to the revision of local council entitlement strongly suggests that at last a common sense response has been made to Cardiff's plea for grant entitlement for the last financial year rather than the bureaucratic response that has greeted it so far? What steps does my right hon. Friend intend to take to ensure that more of the capital receipts are used to repay the debts that have been incurred rather than spent, which would result in extra expense for Welsh ratepayers?
Mr. Walker: New proposals will be made next year about the treatment of receipts and the repayment of existing debt. They will have an important impact. The change that took place in Cardiff and the manner in which the present system was broken off was a disadvantage to Cardiff. However, it has been to the advantage of a whole range of district and county councils. Some were advantaged while others were disadvantaged. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the total rate support grant for Cardiff is to be increased from £15·8 million this year to £19·8 million next year.
Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that Newport borough council is worried about the amount allocated for preparatory work in connection with the introduction of the poll tax? If that fear is well founded, will the Secretary of State ensure that our local authorities are suitably reimbursed?
Mr. Walker: The figures suggested by local authorities for capital costs have been met in our assessments. As for revenue costs, local authorities submitted figures that we recognised were wrong. We went back to them and said that they needed a lot more than they were asking for; we

453
more or less doubled that figure. However, they consider that they should have still more. There is a difference of opinion between us about current costs. However, the majority of the expenditure—the capital cost figures—has been agreed.
Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: We welcome the Sectretary of State's statement that local authorities can still make representations to his Department about the calculation of the settlement. We shall encourage local authorities to do so. However, will he confirm that this percentage increase in the block grant is not enough to meet the manual workers' settlement of 8·7 per cent.? That is a low-paid sector of the Welsh economy. Pay settlements will put pressure on local authorities.
Will the Secretary of State also confirm that the settlement falls short of the needs that were set out by the sub-group of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance? The demands that were made to him by that group are £30 million more than has been granted. The Secretary of State is aware of my personal interest in the level of supplementary grant to the national parks. That is an important though minor part of the environmental protection of the Welsh countryside. Will he confirm that the settlement will put pressure on local authorities? Would he not be a more honest Secretary of State if he were to accept that fact?
Mr. Walker: In the 27 years that I have been a Member of Parliament, under both Labour and Conservative Governments and Lib-Lab pacts, I have never known local authorities to say that the settlement was just what they wanted, that they had been given just the right amount of money and what a super Government they were. Nevertheless, they are rather nearer to saying that this time round than was the case under certain other Administrations.
I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about the national parks and give him specific figures.
Of course there is pressure because of wage increases. If wage increases are given at 8·2 per cent.—well above the rate of inflation—they will have an impact on local authority expenditure, but I do not believe that all those increases should be met by direct Government grant. Local authorities must constantly continue to look for improved efficiency.
Mr. Donald Coleman: Reference has been made to the upward movement of interest rates and inflation since the original statement in July. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House—so that we can plainly understand it—what, in money terms, is the effect of the settlement? Furthermore, what recompense can local authorities expect to receive?
Mr. Walker: I have just explained that to date the effect of the increase in interest rates is far less on local authorities, because much of their borrowing is at fixed interest rates over the long term. Therefore, the pool rate is important. At the moment it is running at about one third of the increase in interest rates. There have been periods recently when interest rates went down, but local authorities did not suggest that there should be a cut in the grants that were being made because interest rates were
454
lower. Such fluctuations have an impact—sometimes to the benefit of local authorities and sometimes against them.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Bearing in mind the controversy over exactly how interest rates will affect local authorities and what is the real effect of the retail prices index on local authority costs, what indicator does the Welsh Office use when assessing the effect of inflation on local government? The housing waiting lists in Wales are growing. How does the Secretary of State intend to meet that challenge? Will it be through the local authorities or through Tai Cymru? There is a huge waiting list in my local authority, Ogwr, for central heating conversions. Many of the people on the waiting list are sick and elderly. Does the Secretary of State recognise that, despite the fact that he believes that he has been generous over this settlement, many needs in Wales are still not being met?
Mr. Walker: Of course many needs are still not being met. The hon. Gentleman specifically mentioned housing. He knows that the total expenditure on local authority housing repairs and improvements in recent years has been at record levels. This Conservative Government have spent over £700 million on both private and public housing. Of considerable advantage in the coming year will be the use of receipts for council house repairs. Those receipts have risen quite sharply this year, and they are likely to rise again during the coming year.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Are not those receipts destined to fall because of the natural limit at which housing sales will proceed? In view of the inadequate provision both for inflation and for wage settlements, is the Secretary of State deliberately forcing local authorities to increase rates in a way that will make them even more unpopular, thereby paving the way for the poll tax?
Further to what my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) said about the preparatory costs for the poll tax, is it correct that the Welsh Office estimated the costs for the two years 1988–89 and 1989–90 to be about £9 million—of which £5 million is being provided by the Welsh Office through grants—but that actual expenditure will be nearer £14 million? Will the right hon. Gentleman accordingly revise the grant in line with the actual rather than the estimated expenditure by Welsh local authorities?
Mr. Walker: There is a difference between us on current expenditure and assessment of costs, but there are similar figures for capital expenditure. I do not accept the figures given by the hon. Gentleman. If, as is the hon. Gentleman's theory, I had wanted to introduce a rate support grant increase designed to put up rates in preparation for the poll tax, I could have followed the example set by the previous Labour Government during their last three years and introduced a rate support grant nowhere near the rate of inflation. That is what the Labour Government did, and it resulted in a reduction of 16 per cent. over three years. I have not done that. An increase in both current and capital provision of 15·4 per cent. over two years is not doing what the hon. Gentleman suggested.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: Is the Secretary of State suggesting that he will fully meet the costs of administering the poll tax?
Mr. Walker: I am not saying that I will send local authorities a cheque to cover whatever they might want to spend on administering the poll tax. I shall make a genuine assessment of what it should cost if it is carried out efficiently.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the Secretary of State answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas), and confirm whether, earlier this year, he received a report from the expenditure sub-group of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance, which established a figure for the needs of Wales £13 million above what the right hon. Gentleman has announced today? Has he told that sub-group that he disagrees with its analysis, or does he accept that there will be either a reduction in services or an increase in rates?
Mr. Walker: There is bound to be a group that suggests that everything that it can think of should be paid for. As I have said, during the 27 years that I have been in this House that has happened with every rate support grant, and it is likely to continue to happen. That sub-group did not include in its calculations the potential for improved efficiency. It did not, for example, suggest, as the Audit Commission has said, that there was potential for improvements in efficiency worth £40 million. There is a balance between the two.
Mr. Ron Davies: The Secretary of State has already acknowledged that the settlemant will be much less than that asked for by the local authority associations. Does he also acknowledge that it is, in fact, less than they need? That is the vital question. It is only a 5 per cent. settlement. The Secretary of State has deliberately evaded all questions about inflation and interest rates. Will he now say unequivocally on what rate of inflation and what rate of interest the settlement was predicated? Has he made any contingency arrangements for increasing the settlement in the likely event of further increases in interest rates next year?
Mr. Walker: I should be interested to know whether the Opposition are, for the first time, saying that the rate support grant should give an exact increase in line with the prediction for inflation—
Mr. Davies: I did not say that.
Mr. Walker: It is what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting should happen. As we know from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's recent statement, the reality is that, apart from the effect of mortgage interest rates, the current rate of inflation is about 5 per cent.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I wish to press the Secretary of State on the question about Cardiff and the missing £2·3 million. He has already been questioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) and by his hon. Friend and my neighbour the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones). The right hon. Gentleman appeared to be offering half an olive branch to Cardiff when he said that authorities' grant entitlement could be recalculated. Does he recognise that cross-party representatives, including his colleagues on Cardiff city council, are firm in their view of what happened to that £2·3 million? Will Cardiff get back that missing £2·3 million in the forthcoming rate support grant entitlement?
Mr. Walker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has studied the matter in great detail and will know that we decided to draw a line, on a particular date, to end the present system, based upon the budgets received. It so happens that Cardiff considered that that settlement, compared with the budget that it was putting in thereafter, left it disadvantaged. We now have figures from all the districts in Wales, of which 11—including Cardiff—are disadvantaged and 15 are advantaged, some of them by very small amounts. We had to draw a line to end the present system, and some councils benefited and others did not.
Mr. Barry Jones: For the last time, I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will do the decent thing by Cardiff city council and say that it can have its £2·3 million?
Mr. Walker: We made it perfectly clear that the line had to be drawn. Does the hon. Gentleman want those councils that have been advantaged to have their money clawed back? Cardiff city council's rate support grant in this settlement is going up substantially, as is shown in the figures that I have given to the House. That will be of great benefit to Cardiff in the coming year. Indeed, based on the grant figure that it will receive, I do not expect its rates to rise by very much.

Prime Minister's Question Time
4.46 pm
Mr. Gavin Strang: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will no doubt have noticed that during Prime Minister's Question Time, in order to prevent hon. Members from asking questions about the historic unilateral troop cuts announced by the Soviet leader yesterday, the Prime Minister deliberately quoted at inordinate length from Mr. Gorbachev's speech in the United Nations yesterday. I accept that the right hon. Lady is entitled to do that, but it is not the first time that she has clearly indulged in a practice designed to reduce the number of hon. Members asking questions. Prime Minister's Question Time is, arguably, the most precious time in the House and extends to just two 15-minute sessions a week. If the Prime Minister intends to persist with such behaviour, should you not raise the matter with her, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for what is said from the Dispatch Box, provided that it is in order. It is permissible for Ministers and the Prime Minister to read their answers.
Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realise that you are in a difficult position when a Minister persists in abusing Question Time, as the Prime Minister has done during the last three or four sessions of Prime Minister's Question Time. The right hon. Lady has read statements rather than make statements to the House on which she could be questioned.
When Opposition Members ask questions—which is all that they can do—you sometimes intervene, Mr. Speaker, and say that we must try to be brief. In view of the Prime Minister's growing and persistent abuse, is it not possible
458
for you to point out to her that it is precious Back-Bench time and that she, too, should learn to be succinct and not abuse our proceedings?
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When considering the conduct of Prime Minister's Question Time, you might also wish to consider the conduct of the Leader of the Opposition, who was called four times and thus prevented other hon. Members asking questions. It is a little rich for Opposition Members to complain that they do not have time to ask questions when, in fact, they continually persist in shouting down my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when she is answering questions.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I, as somebody who is neutral in the main argument—although I am hardly on the side of the Prime Minister—say that Mr. Speaker Thomas and Mr. Speaker Lloyd, I think, used to allow injury time at Prime Minister's Question Time for three or even four minutes beyond 3.30 pm if there was a feeling that there had been any abuse. Is that not a possibility open to us when the Prime Minister makes the sort of statements that she has done on a number of occasions recently?
Mr. Strang: I am grateful for your answer, Mr. Speaker, but the issue here is the length of time that the Prime Minister takes to quote from speeches. If we were to take that to its logical conclusion, the Prime Minister could stand at the Dispatch Box and read a statement for 10 minutes. Surely in those circumstances she should be pulled up.
Mr. Speaker: That would be considered an abuse, but I have not so far noticed an abuse of that sort. A certain scope is given to both Front Benches at Question Time. It is true, as I hope the House will agree, that I am anxious to call as many Back Benchers as possible, and that is helped by brief questions and answers.

Orders of the Day

  Water Bill
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [7 December], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Question again proposed.
  Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that today I propose to limit speeches to 10 minutes between 6 and 8 o'clock. I hope that those who speak after 8 o'clock will also limit their speeches to that time, so that every hon. Member who wishes to be called can be accommodated.
  Mr. Donald Coleman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Water is a matter of enormous significance to us in Wales, yet I notice that, apparently the Secretary of State for Wales is not going to participate in this important debate, and that it is being left to the Minister of State. Is there any way in which you, Mr. Speaker, can arrange for the Secretary of State to take part in this vital debate?
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me. I do not designate who speaks from the Front Bench.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that this debate is adjourned from yesterday? If you look at Hansard you will see, and since you were in the Chair you will also recall, that at 10 o'clock you had to interrupt the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State towards the end of his speech because of the 10 o'clock rule, which allows him to return to the Dispatch Box now to complete his reply to yesterday's debate. In particular, he did not answer the questions from amenity groups about the recreational use of land or about charges. If he had wanted to answer these questions he would have the right to complete his speech at the Dispatch Box this afternoon.
  Mr. Speaker: Technically, that is correct, but I can only call Members who seek to catch the eye of the Chair.
  4.53 pm
  The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): I want to devote a proportion of this opening speech in this second day of the debate to the changes that the Bill will bring about in Wales. Many English Members will be interested because they obtain their supplies from Wales. As the House will know, water is a sensitive issue in Wales, partly because we can supply it to others cheaper than we can buy it ourselves. Our geography, which provides for an abundance of rain, requires that our water charges, related as they must be to distribution costs, are relatively high. But I shall return to charges later.
  In general, the provisons of the Bill apply equally to both Wales and England. The Bill will create in Wales private-sector undertakers to provide clean, wholesome water and take away dirty water through the sewerage system. I am confident that the privatisation of the utility functions of the water authorities in Wales will allow the provision of a more efficient operation to the benefit of Welsh consumers.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Minister suggested that he thought that the Bill would be helpful to Welsh consumers. Given that the average equated water
  460
  rate for 1988–89 in Wales is 108p compared with 50·95p in Severn-Trent—over twice the level—will he say whether that gap will close when the Bill comes into effect?
  Mr. Roberts: As I hope to show, privatisation of the utility function of the authority will make for greater efficiency and will contribute towards the reduction of prices, but there are other factors to be taken into account.
  The Bill will also establish the National Rivers Authority to take over the other functions of the water authorities.
  This split of the present water authorities, a split of interests that were often in competition, will not, as has been suggested by some, break up the system of integrated river management. It will sensibly divide the functional provision of water and sewerage services from the present regulatory and promotional roles. It will lead to a better system of benefit to us all.
  Our proposals for a National Rivers Authority have been widely welcomed by all the major conservation groups and reflect the Government's commitment to the protection of the water environment. The NRA's functions will include water pollution control, water resource management, flood defence, fisheries and recreation—all matters of considerable importance in Wales.
  The NRA will be an England and Wales body, but its real presence and the impact of its policies will be in the regions. The NRA regions will be based on the boundaries of the present water authorities, and there will be one region covering the present area of the Welsh water authority.
  The main NRA committee in each region will be the regional rivers advisory committee which will encompass all the main interest groups and be able to make representation to the authority about the way in which it carries out its functions in its region. The authority will appoint the members of that committee.
  The NRA will discharge its land drainage functions through regional flood defence committees, successors to the current regional land drainage committees. These will be based on the same areas as the existing RLDCs and will be constituted on similar lines.
  I can assure the House that the provisions of the Bi11 do not fundamentally alter the present position with regard to land drainage and flood protection. The chairman and a number of other members of the regional flood defence committee will be appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
  The National Rivers Authority will also be advised in its regions by regional fisheries advisory committees, appointed by the NRA, which will also determine how many local advisory committees it requires. In doing that, it will take into account the views of the interested organisations. Those concerned with fisheries will also have a voice on the regional rivers advisory committee, so those interested in fisheries will be able to pursue local needs and problems as well as considering the broader, more general issues.
  The responses to the consultation paper on the National Rivers Authority published in July 1987 showed that few were in favour of a separate NRA for Wales. Respondents were more concerned to ensure that they would receive a good quality service.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will have a considerable interest in NRA functions in

  461
  Wales. To help him, the Secretary of State for Wales will appoint a special NRA committee to advise him on Welsh issues, related to NRA policies and activities. The special committee will advise on matters related to the whole of Wales, including that part currently served by the Severn-Trent water authority and will include the chairmen of the various regional committees for the area currently served by the Welsh water authority. This special committee will be chaired by the Secretary of State for Wales' appointee to the NRA. We consider that the chairman of Severn-Trent's regional river advisory committee should also be a member, and there is a case for one or two more independent members.
  Mr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: The Minister is aware of my keen interest in reducing the number of quangos in Wales to reduce public expenditure. Will he explain the proposed structure and where it is set out in the Bill because so far I have failed to find it? Perhaps it is in an appendix. Will he confirm that the NRA will be accountable to the Secretary of State for the Environment and that the structure in Wales is that the NRA advisory committee will advise both the Secretary of State for Wales and the NRA? In other words, the NRA is an English body accountable to the Secretary of State for the Environment and another Welsh quango will advise the Secretary of State about his response to the NRA.
  Mr. Roberts: I thought that I had made the position absolutely clear. The Secretary of State for Wales will appoint a member of the National Rivers Authority. The Secretary of State will have a special committee that will be chaired by that appointed member of the NRA. On that committee, which will be non-statutory, there will be the people that I have mentioned who are themselves chairmen of statutory bodies. As I said, there will be a case for other independent members. We shall be looking for an efficient and effective NRA that will secure in Wales improvements in environmental water matters.
  The new water plc that succeeds Welsh Water will be responsible for the supply of water and the removal of effluent. The Bill will also provide new powers allowing the Secretary of State to set out clearly in regulation the quality of the water that the new undertakers will be obliged to provide. There is no doubt that if the trends that faced the Government in 1979 had continued, the proposals in the Bill to establish private sector water and sewerage undertakers would not now be before the House. That the proposals are before us is the result of Government policies and of the work of the various managements of the water authorities who have successfully implemented Government policies. Welsh Water's management has played its part.
  As Welsh Members said yesterday, much time has been spent in the House discussing the many aspects of the performance of the Welsh water authority, but the authority's performance has stood up well to scrutiny, and I pay tribute to what it has achieved. When the Bill is enacted, the successor company to the Welsh water authority must, of course, concentrate on the core businesses of water and sewerage, but it will also be able to develop other business activities with less restraint than in the past.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister has spoken about the existing water authority. Could he tell us a little about the conflicting demands for use of the rivers by canoeists and fly fishermen? To what extent will those conflicts be resolved by charges? He will be aware that on the Conway and on other rivers in north Wales there has been almost open warfare between canoeists and fly fishermen over who should use them. How will these changes improve that argument?
  Mr. Roberts: I look forward to debating that matter in Committee because it will make for an excellent Committee debate. I am coming to various aspects of the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised in this debate and that he raised yesterday when my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for sport replied to him. However, we can go over the ground again if he wishes.
  We recognise that the new public limited companies will be natural monopolies. Safeguards for the customer are therefore necessary and the Bill provides for regulatory arrangements. Some conditions, including the general duties to provide water and sewerage services and compliance with the quality standard set for water supplies, will be enforced by the Secretary of State. But additionally, the Bill establishes the Director General of Water Services who will be independent of Ministers and accountable to Parliament. His role will be to protect consumers by monitoring the performance of the water companies against the conditions of their licence, to set charges limits and to ensure that the water companies carry out their functions efficiently and effectively. Customers will be directly represented in the regulatory system by a network of regional customer service committees reporting direct to the director general.
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd: What assurances can the Minister give customers that disconnections in Wales will not increase under the privatised authority? He will know that under the present arrangements the Welsh water authority is top of the league for disconnections to customers. What assurance can he give that things will not get worse under a privatised industry?
  Mr. Roberts: The hon. Lady will have to wait for the terms and conditions of the licence that will be given to the water plc. At present, Welsh Water appoints seven local consumer advisory committees, one to match each of its original operating divisions. This structure differs from that operating in the areas of the nine English regional water authorities.
  Under the Bill the customer service committees will be appointed by the director general and will be totally independent of the undertakers that they will monitor. There will be two such committees operating in Wales, one covering the Severn-Trent area and the other covering the Welsh water authority area.
  Schedule 4 of the Bill allows customer service committees, with the approval of the director general, to establish local and other sub-committees. In a statement to the House on 5 February 1986, the then Secretary of State for Wales, my noble Friend Lord Crickhowell, gave a commitment that the customer service committee operation within the area of the Welsh water authority could be assisted by divisional committees. We hold to that view, although I should add that the number of sub-committees required will need to take into account the structure of Welsh Water's successor company and the

  463
  changed responsibilities of the committees in Wales because of the establishment of the National Rivers Authority.
  The membership of the committee in Welsh Water's area will be the same as its English counterparts, with members drawn from broadly the same interest groups represented on the present local consumer advisory committees. The customer service committees will represent to the director general the views of the customers on the operations of the water undertakers. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) will be interested to know that they will have a statutory duty under clause 26 to investigate complaints and to consult companies about matters that seem to the committee to affect the interests of consumers. They have a vital role in the regulatory system.
  I want to touch upon three issues of particular sensitivity in Wales—land, public access and charges.
  The privatised water and sewerage undertakers must have the freedom to dispose of land surplus to their operational requirements. This is the present practice. The Welsh water authority has the right to dispose of surplus land, and the Government have consistently encouraged the water authorities to dispose of land surplus to their requirements.
  Dr. Thomas rose—
  Mr. Roberts: I can assure the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) that such disposals are currently taking place. No company, whether private or public, will wish to dispose of land that it requires for operational purposes. By getting rid of land that is required—for instance, as a gathering ground for water—might raise the danger of an adverse effect upon the quality of supply, and water undertakers can be penalised if water is not up to the specified quality.
  Much of the land held by Welsh Water is in national parks or in environmentally sensitive areas. The value of any such land to a prospective purchaser depends on the receipt of planning permission for development. I find it difficult to visualise a situation in which planning permission would be more easily obtained than it is now, especially in our national parks or in other areas of outstanding natural beauty. Such sites will continue to be subject to stringent planning controls, and land in other areas will remain subject to local planning controls.
  Dr. Thomas: The Minister knows that I represent more national parks than any other hon. Member. I am therefore deeply concerned about the implications of what he has said. Will he give an assurance to me and to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) who represents the Brecon Beacons national park that no land will be disposed of in the national parks by the successor utility to the Welsh water authority or any other authority before consulting the national parks authority? Is it the Government's intention, in privatising water utilities, to privatise land holdings in national parks which are environmentally sensitive?
  Mr. Roberts: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he asks because, as I have said the existing authorities have the right to dispose of land and the successor companies will have a similar right.
  464
  Obviously, we are seeking to assess the value of the land, and that will have to be taken into account in fixing the price for shares on flotation.
  The majority of us who are interested in the protection of the environment have nothing whatsoever to fear from the proposals in the Bill and should welcome the additional safeguards provided. That has not of course stopped the numerous scare stories that have come to the surface in recent weeks. Water authorities, once privatised, it is said, will not care for the environment. They will be so concerned to make profits that everything else will go by the board. They will charge exorbitant prices for facilities and even, according to the Daily Post of 25 November, charge for admission to national parks. Anyone who has studied the provisions of the Bill will realise that that is certainly not intended and I am surprised—indeed appalled—that such stories should appear.
  As my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for sport pointed out in his closing speech last night, clause 7 of the Bill places duties on both the National Rivers Authority and the privatised undertakers in relation to conservation of the environment, the development of water and land for recreational purposes and the preservation of public rights of way and rights of access.
  Moreover, clause 9 provides for a code of practice which the Secretary of State may produce to give practical guidance to undertakers and promote best practice. The code, a draft of which will be available in the new year, will be taken into account. by the Secretary of State in exercising his powers under the Bill and in assessing the performance of any particular water or sewerage undertaker.
  The Bill allows for charges to be made for recreational facilities, but facilities are not free now. At present, costs not recouped from specific receipts are paid for by all customers through the environmental services charge, which is quite significant in Wales. That will no longer be available, and it is only right and proper that those who use facilities should pay for them. But the charges must reflect the standard of the facilities offered and the availability of alternatives. Another constraint is the simple practicality of collecting and enforcing charges. The water undertakers will have a public image to project and undoubtedly, as other private companies have sought to do, will seek to show the community that they are worthy and effective custodians of the water environment.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I well understand that if the water authorities do something to improve the opportunity for people to enjoy facilities there is an argument for making charges. Will the Minister guarantee that there will be no charge when canoeists use a river and the water authority does nothing to facilitate that activity? Will he guarantee that there will be no charges on people who walk over land which is not a public right of way, but traditionally the water authorities have allowed people to walk over it, if nothing is done to improve the facilities?
  Mr. Roberts: In his earlier intervention, the hon. Gentleman posed the problem with which I am only too familiar of the conflict between canoeists and anglers. As I have said, we would be well advised to discuss that in Committee rather than on the Floor of the House. With regard to his other point, as he knows, I have referred specifically to where there are rights of way, where there are facilities that have cost money and have to be charged

  465
  for. We have covered that point. I am sure that if one pursued it in detail, as I know the hon. Gentleman is so capable of doing, we shall have to examine very carefully specific areas such as those he mentioned.
  The level of water charges in Wales has always been a contentious subject. I do not intend to go into the reasons for that today, except to say that charges in Wales are set, as they are throughout England and Wales, at the lowest possible level to maintain and improve services to the customer. We are all concerned with protecting the environment and that cannot be achieved without cost.
  Mr. Allan Roberts: Does the Minister accept that the water services charge is a precept upon the rates of local authorities by the water authority at the moment, and that the change that takes place under the Bill is that the National Rivers Authority will be responsible and will use taxpayers' money instead of ratepayers' money? The Government believe in cutting public expenditure and not contributing the money that we expect. That is why we think that they will be caught. The White Paper and the Bill state that charges will be increased to maximise income.
  Mr. Roberts: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has got it quite right. He knows how the NRA will be financed. It will receive Exchequer support. However, whatever service is provided must be paid for somehow. Currently, in some places many services are covered by the environmental services charge.
  If we are to have bathing waters that comply with European Commission requirements, if we are to meet demand for wholesome water at constant and reasonable pressure, if we are to be free from polluted waterways and foul flooding to a greater degree than in the past, those higher standards need to be paid for, regardless of whether the undertakers are in the private or the public sector. Because of the discipline of the private sector and the market, privatising the industry may well mean that those necessary charges turn out to be less than they would have been otherwise.
  There is considerable interest in Wales in this measure and we intend that it should benefit the people of Wales in all the ways possible under its provisions. They can become share owners and have a real stake in the new company. They can own Welsh water in a way that they have never owned it before. There are all sorts of ways in which the Welsh people can participate actively in the new arrangements and ensure that this measure is of benefit to them and to Wales as a whole.
  5.17 pm
  Mr. Barry Jones: The Minister of State is right in saying that water is a sensitive issue in Wales, so why does the Secretary of State not address the House on what is arguably the most important measure to affect Wales this year? Why is the Secretary of State absent? Why has he left the Chamber?
  The Welsh water authority has 1 million customers, 3 million consumers and 4,600 employees, and the overwhelming majority of them are against privatisation. The Minister of State proposes a course of action that does not have the backing of the people in Wales. Nor has he been persuasive today.
  466
  The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) yesterday promised vehement opposition. He said that before the industry had been put into the public domain there had been horrendous problems related to health. I agree with him. That memory remains in Wales, and that is why there is no body of support and why the measure is totally friendless in Wales, as there is a generation still active in public life in the Principality which suffered great privation between the wars. That generation tells those who will listen about the chaos and inaction, and about dysentery and other diseases, that were prevalent when standards were low.
  Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) denounced Her Majesty's Government for their hypocritical acts in pulling the plug on the water industry. My hon. Friend's chief point was that, by imposing artificially low ceilings on the Welsh water authority's capital investment and borrowings, the Government have created a backlog of remedial works that will cost enormous amounts of money to clear. My hon. Friend should know—he chairs our Select Committee. Opposition Members do not believe that that money will be available in the right amounts on the right terms.
  Last night the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars)—a Scot—said that the nation's resources were to be stolen. There is certainly an echo of that assertion throughout Wales. Welsh public opinion is deeply hostile to the Bill.
  In a passionate speech in the same debate last night, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) asked about the consequence of metering on the poorest families and the largest families. They are often the same. They must economise on water. I emphasise my agreement with the remarks of my hon. Friend when he said that there is deprivation in Wales and that the Welsh Office must face the issue when the Bill is considered in Committee.
  Again, from the Opposition Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) dealt with the crux of the Bill which is that, faced with the priority of making profits, it is extremely unlikely that the vigorous policy of environmental improvement that is urgently needed will appeal to privately owned water companies. I can truthfully report to the House that that is the fear in Wales.
  When he wound up the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) touched on another crucial feature. He said that there were contradictions in the Government's stance. They must persuade the City that, first, there are no destabilising uncertainties about costs attached to environmental controls, and, secondly, that there are genuine additional environmental safeguards, backed by cash. So far in the debate, we have not been persuaded. My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle was shrewd to make that point. We in Wales are sceptical of the Government's supposed good intentions, and we are cynical because of the Government's record so far.
  Last night, too, my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) said that the Government had skilfully and ruthlessly removed from the water industry almost everybody who might have opposed its privatisation. Will the National Rivers Authority impose centralisation to such an extent that Wales will lose? Will the Welsh authority plc be able to attract the necessary capital to

  467
  tackle the huge challenge that remains in polluted areas? That was the gravamen of the complaint by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley).
  Mr. Win Griffiths: On the question of paying to deal with pollution, the Welsh water authority has a programme for cleaning up beaches which is due to be completed in about 15 years. is it not a good idea to warn potential purchasers of water authority shares that action could be taken against the Government to bring beaches into line in a much shorter period than the 15 years that are currently planned? The Commission is recorded as being prepared to consider that proposal.
  Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend has made an apposite point. The warning is serious. Swansea bay may be the exemplar of my hon. Friend's accusation.
  Last night my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made a balanced contribution to the debate. He sensitively referred to the drowned valleys and destroyed communities of yesteryear. Those communities were damaged or obliterated so that the big cities of England could benefit.
  The Bill increases resentment. The people of Wales do not want the Bill, but the Prime Minister and her ideologues want to impose it upon us. Yesteryear saw insensitivity for the benefit of English cities. The Government's actions tomorrow will be insensitive, and they will be for profit. That is an insensitive approach, and it is one of the main reasons why there is so much resentment in the Principality.
  "The time has come when we must stop taking our water resources for granted. Water is too scarce; it costs too much to collect, transport and distribute any longer to be wasted, polluted or fenced off from recreational use. The Government's proposals are, therefore, radical and far-reaching. They are designed to create the conditions and to provide the necessary modern machinery for the cleaning up of our rivers, the improvement of our sewerage and sewage disposal arrangements, and the safeguarding of the nation's water supplies for the remainder of this century."—[Official Report, 2 December 1971; Vol. 827, c. 679.]
  Those are not my words; they were the words of the Secretary of State for Wales. They were uttered on 2 December 1971, when he was Secretary of State for the Environment, when he made social and economic history by proudly introducing in a statement the forerunner of the far-reaching 1972 water industry legislation.
  The right hon. Gentleman is the Secretary of State for Wales, but he is the man who begat the last great water reorganisation. He was then a young Heathite Cabinet Minister, pledged to interventionism. As a Cabinet Minister, he saw the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) sack the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), the present Secretary of State for the Environment, who was then an Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. [Interruption.] Yes, it happened. The present Secretary of State for the Environment lost office because, even then, he was a market forces man.
  The Secretay of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): Of all people, as a member of the Labour party, the hon. Gentleman must know the difference between resignation and being sacked.
  Mr. Jones: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that gracious intervention. I remember that after he left office he behaved true to form on the Committee
  468
  considering what became the Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972 and demonstrated that even then he was a market forces man.
  The logic of the 1971 statement by the now Secretary of State for Wales was that of social ownership of a vital public utility. By his statement, the right hon. Gentleman established quangos. He ackowledged the importance of local authorities and gave them substantial water authority places. How times change in British politics. The sacked then Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who left office gracefully—he was not sacked, he said—now dictates to the Secretary of State for Wales. The sacked then Under-Secretary of State, who left office gracefully, is today's Cabinet market forces apologist.
  Today is a sad day for civil servants in Wales. They do not want the Bill. They know its flaws, they know its risks and, doubtless, they have advised against it. I do not think that they had to argue long with the Secretary of State for Wales.
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman has no basis whatsoever for saying that the loyal civil servants in the Welsh Office, which has been loyal to successive Governments, are against the Bill. If he has a shred of evidence, will he please produce it?
  Mr. Jones: That intervention would have been so much more effective if the Secretary of State for Wales had been able to make it. Where is the Secretary of State for Wales? Nothing that the Minister of State has said today has any ring of conviction or of truth.
  When the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury introduced this matter in the Cabinet, I suspect that the Secretary of State for Wales went pale before he went red with rage. At that Cabinet meeting, and certainly at that Cabinet Committee meeting, I do not think that the Secretary of State for Wales shaded his advice. I believe that he called for a rethink. What he probably said was on these lines: "Leave well alone. Privatising the water industry is a step in the dark. We have better things to do, and with better political returns."
  Mr. Ridley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jones: I shall not give way at the moment. I am grateful for the presence of the Secretary of State for the Environment, if we cannot have the Secretary of State for Wales. Where is the Secretary of State for Wales? If the right hon. Gentleman will tell me where he is, I might later allow him to answer some of the questions that I intend to put.
  Mr. Ridley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jones: Later.
  Before I was interrupted, I was saying how I saw that Cabinet meeting.
  Mr. Ridley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jones: No, later.
  If the right hon. Gentleman can contain himself and listen to me, I was saying that the Secretary of State for Wales was probably saying: "We have better things to do, and with better political returns. Privatising the Welsh water authority will be seen as an affront by most Welsh people. Lately, the Principality has gone through a very rough patch. Nationalism in Wales has little support, but all parts of Wales have a high degree of national

  469
  consciousness. They are already cynical about the advantages of those in the south-east and about what is called the City and speculation."
  The right hon. Gentleman probably went on: "This measure will stir up policial trouble for us. The Welsh like their water authority even though they criticise it. I created the Welsh water authority, so I should know, should I not? The party in Wales has some difficult seats to defend. Frankly, the privatisation of water is political suicide in Wales."
  I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman went on in this way: "Do you not think it would also be disastrous in the regions, for example, in the north-west and in Yorkshire? Why make such an ideological fetish of privatisation, Nick?" However, the Prime Minister said, summing up: "Peter, we are not going to be moved. Nicholas and I are not for turning." No one else in the Cabinet supported the Secretary of State for Wales.
  Before turning to the next business, the Prime Minister probably then said: "Peter, if you and Ted created the water authorities, Nick and I will be bound to sell them off to the highest bidder."
  Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way at the end of his description of the Cabinet meeting at which the Secretary of State for the Environment is alleged to have presented his proposals for privatising the water industry. At the time, the Secretary of State was my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) and the Secretary of State for Wales was my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. The hon. Gentleman has cast the characters two years out of date, which shows his extraordinary historical ignorance.
  Mr. Jones: Lord Crickhowell is under a kind of house arrest in the other place. I had hoped that the Secretary of State would tell the House where the Secretary of State for Wales is. I am sure that this little drama was enacted before the Gracious Speech was finalised.
  Mr. Ron Davies: The Secretary of State referred to the previous Secretary of State for Wales. Does my hon. Friend feel it somewhat amiss that that individual, who was then a member of the Cabinet that gave birth to these proposals, is now receiving £40,000 a year as the chairman-designate of the National Rivers Authority? Does my hon. Friend agree that if that happened in local government the individuals involved would now be in prison?
  Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend signed the appropriate early-day motion at the time.
  There was unease yesterday among Conservative Members about the effectiveness of the National Rivers Authority, the proposed watchdog for pollution. To put it bluntly, the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison), always his own man, asked:
  "What guarantee is there that the Treasury will be less mean than usual?"
  There is no guarantee. The hon. Gentleman went on:
  "Without that … the NRA may not be able to live up to its responsibilities, especially in monitoring the effect of pollution along the 25,000 miles of rivers, in coastal waters, on ground water and in estuaries".—[Official Report, 7 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 362-63.]
  470
  I should warn fishermen in the Principality to watch the situation carefully.
  The Minister of State referred to the National Rivers Authority, but I must tell him that both the Wales TUC and the Welsh Consumer Council sought a Wales National Rivers Authority which would have been accountable to our own Secretary of State. The regional aspect of the hon. Gentleman's speech was not at all persuasive.
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: Of the 51 responses to our consultation document, only nine were in favour of a National Rivers Authority for Wales.
  Mr. Jones: I have quoted the two substantial bodies of opinion.
  Mr. Wigley: The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) has raised an important matter that has not been clarified by the Government, either today or yesterday. I am referring to the responsibility for river water in Wales. Will it remain a Welsh Office function if the National Rivers Authority is answerable to the Department of the Environment? There will be an almighty tangle in terms of answerability if the Bill remains as it is.
  Mr. Jones: The prospects for complications are considerable and the hon. Gentleman's point is well made.
  When will the Minister of State make a statement on the impact of the changeover on Welsh industry? Industrialists in Wales will be under pressure on prices from day one. Privatisation could mean that the control of water supplies and sewerage services to Welsh customers will, for the first time, pass to non-Welsh organisations, chiefly because the shares in the new water company are likely to be held by finance houses in London or abroad. Welsh public opinion will not accept that.
  Last year the Welsh water authority was top of the league for cutting off water supplies to defaulting families. Between 1984–87 and 1987–88, the cut-off rate escalated. That came through with startling clarity in an answer to a question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). Our fear is that the new company, driven by profit reasons, will drive up the cut-off rate dramatically. I remind the House that Wales manages to top the league tables of poverty, ill health, pollution and dereliction, and that there is a public health consequence in respect of cut-offs, as there is in respect of the imposition, should it occur, of metering.
  I should like to set out the size of the task ahead of us if the measure goes forward. There are 10 Welsh lakes and 90 miles of Welsh rivers without fish. The Welsh water authority has more coastal sewage discharges than any English water authority region. The majority of the authority's discharges to tidal waters are short outfalls discharging crude, untreated sewage. Some 40 per cent. of these outfalls are more than 40 years old and a few date from the 19th century. The Welsh water authority has a greater number of small, older outfalls than any other water authority, and many of them were designed with little attention to environmental effects. In Wales, there are also hundreds of private sewage discharges, but these now come under the control of the water authority.
  Mr. Tim Devlin: I have not been in Wales for some months, but if what the hon. Gentleman

  471
  says is true, does it not make sense to separate the function of licensing pollution discharges and being the water authority? Is that not what is achieved by the Bill?
  Mr. Jones: The point that I am making, by giving highly relevant and impartial information, is that we do not believe that the great task ahead can be tackled by the plans which the Government have so far outlined, and which the Minister adumbrated with regard to Wales.
  The Wrexham and East Denbighshire water company is a statutory water company. I make my remarks about it in the knowledge that in Wales even the remotest prospect of our most basic commodity falling under foreign control will raise the nation's hackles. Does the Welsh water authority have any shares in the Wrexham water company? Does that authority harbour the objective of taking the Wrexham water company over on privatisation? Are any of the French water companies negotiating with the Wrexham water company for the possession of shares? I have established that Wrexham water company shares have increased in value since December 1987. The 4.9 per cent. consolidated ordinary voting stocks have increased in value by nearly six times this year.
  These are the justifiable queries of those who have a care for this statutory company. I hope that before the end of the debate there will be some answers. I also want to know whether the Wrexham water company is vulnerable to a stock market raid during the complex flotation period.
  I can illustrate my case against this privatisation by the briefest of references to a previous privatisation measure—the selling off of the bus industry. Examples may be drawn from the lamentable consequences of the Government's legislation on that. I shall attempt to illustrate the defects of this legislation by telling the House that shareholders of Crossville Wales are being asked to back a £6 million takeover of the North Wales Bus Company, a bid that will earn them a massive 300 per cent. profit on every share. This company was privatised for around £3 million, and 15 months later it will be sold off for around £6 million.
  National Express, the country's biggest operator of long-distance coaches, has offered to buy Notiontreat Limited, the holding company of Crossville Wales, for £30 cash for every £1 ordinary share. The three directors, who own just over half Crossville Wales ordinary shares, are recommending that the offer be accepted. They have irrevocably undertaken to accept the offer. The chairman of the company has 48,000 shares, the commercial director and the engineering director have 26,000 shares. A sale at £30 a share would make the chairman's holdings worth, instead of £48,000, £1·3 million. The other two directors would see their holdings worth £754,000.
  Let me give the House a warning about why this privatisation legislation should not be accepted. The fourth director of Notiontreat, who took no part in the board's deliberations on the offer, is not joining in the board's recommendation to accept the offer, as he is also a director and chairman of National Express, which is making the takeover offer. However, that member had more than 4,000 ordinary shares in the North Wales company and I understand that they have been transferred to close family. They will be worth about £122,000 if the annual general meeting accepts the offer.
  472
  Why do I refer to that effect? My reason is summed up by the divisional officer of the Transport and General Workers Union, Mr. Jim Morris, who said:
  "I don't blame individuals, but the Government who created such a situation. This is privatisation at any price. We always said National Bus Company was being sold at a knock down price. The price being asked for individual companies was giving them away."
  That must be the case in the bus industry, and we fear that it may be the case with the water industry. We fear a rip off, and the Daily Post of today was doing a public service in publishing that information.
  This is a land Bill. The Welsh water authority owns over 91,000 acres. When last in Wales was such a huge acreage sold off in one fell swoop? In the history of Wales, this proposal is of considerable social and economic importance. It is offensive to Welsh people that a great, successful and viable utility, a strategic resource, is to be sold. Some 9,700 acres make up the water surface. Approximately 63,000 acres surround the lakes and reservoirs. The Welsh water authority owns some of the wildest and grandest land imaginable, and the authority also owns 385 acres of important and valuable urban land. It has planning consent for nearly 10,000 acres across Wales. At the moment it is seeking planning consent for another 2,000 acres. There may be a number of other sites for which planning consent will be sought in due course. The Welsh water authority owns land worth tens of milions of pounds, and I want the Minister to tell us how much, on the basis of its land holding alone, the authority is worth.
  Land with planning permission is worth a fortune. Land of scenic beauty in the late 20th century is worth a fortune. Land with scenic beauty alongside water reaches is worth even more. At the moment the authority is a sensitive developer and exploiter of the land, but the Bill opens up the possibility of speculation by people and forces with fewer scruples. There is even the prospect of windfall profits for the new owners. I remind the Minister that the Brecon Beacons have breathtaking beauty. Snowdonian scenery is awesome, and the Welsh marches are charming walking countryside. There is a welcome in our green valleys. There is access to the hillsides as well as a welcome, and we are telling the House, "Do not change a successful formula." I think that the people of Wales should know that the Labour party will return the water companies to social ownership.
  There is widespread dismay in Wales that the Government have arrogantly proposed this measure without a shread of support from our people. Welsh consumers expect a surge in the price of water. We are contemptuous of a Government who impose the measure on Wales but not on Scotland. We support the environmentalists, who fear commercial pressures on the landscape. The Bill sets up a monopoly that will have no competition. The Bill appears to set no specific water quality standards. It hands over some of the most important assets in Wales to private enterprise, and probably at a rip-off price.
  Nobody believes that there will be sufficient capital investment to tackle outstanding pollution problems. Even at this late stage, I ask the Government to omit Wales from the legislation. For the people of Wales, this legislation is retrograde. Everybody expects the new company to put profit before investment and exploitation before quality. No local authority, no church, and no voluntary

  473
  organisation in Wales supports the Bill. It is completely friendless. The Bill is a 343-page long political suicide note. It will cost the Government dear in Wales. We know that it will lose them national political power. We have no hesitation in urging all hon. Members to vote the Bill down tonight.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that you have a responsibility to safeguard the interests of individual hon. Members. As no Conservative Member has risen to provide an alibi for the Secretary of State for Wales, I wonder whether you have been told why he is not here to defend the contrast between his 1971 position and his position today.
  5.50 pm
  Mr. Chris Butler: Most of my remarks are not concerned with Welsh Water at all, but I listened carefully to the speech by the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) and I found it interesting. He called for a Welsh National Rivers Authority, which would cover the whole of Wales. I remember the passage of the Wales Bill—of which the hon. Gentleman was an enthusiastic supporter—through the House. It proposed that the Welsh assembly should deal only with the area covered by the Welsh water authority, not with the area covered by the Severn-Trent water authority. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman appears to have changed his mind on the matter of Welsh Water.
  He also advanced a new concept, which was that the Welsh water authority was a popular establishment in Wales. That is certainly news to me. I understood his point about the history of the planning of water and that the establishment of a water supply was tainted with incidences of disease, because I remember my father telling me when I was young of his experience as a GP in the south Wales valleys. However, the quality of water depends not so much on its ownership, but on the statutory framework within which the relevant authorities are run.
  In 1886 there was a cholera outbreak associated with a bakery that was noted for its especially fine quality bread. Sanitary inspectors were called in. They found that there was a connection between the local privies and water reservoirs that were used in the bakery. They closed off the connection and the cholera outbreak subsided. However, this was followed by public outrage because the quality of the bread deteriorated.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: It had no taste.
  Mr. Butler: Quite so.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment told me in a written answer:
  "All public supplies of drinking water in the United Kingdom are safe to drink."—[Official Report, 26 October 1988; Vol. 139, c. 228.]
  On the very next day, in The Daily Telegraph, it was reported that Thames Water admitted that its water contains five times the legally permitted level of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are well known carcinogens derived from the coal tar linings of water pipes. Thames Water said that it would cost £1 billion to put right, and a sombre official admitted, "Someone's got to pay for this".
  474
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment in a reply on 3 November said that there was unlikely to be
  "any significant health risk from drinking water which occasionally exceeds the standards".
  But how significant is significant? After all, the levels are five times those permitted by European Community law and presumably those standards are devised on the advice of experts. How occasionally is occasionally? After all, the coal tar is in the pipes all the time. The North West water authority is engaging in urgent research to find out whether its water, too, is contaminated with PAHs.
  I question whether all public supplies of water are safe to drink. We know that 85 water supplies in Scotland exceed the European Community lead limit, that in 61 out of 168 samples the carcinogen trichloroethylene was found at levels above the World Health Organisation's permitted limits, and 4 million people in this country drink water contaminated with nitrates at above the limit permitted by the European Community maximum of 50 mg per litre.
  I am especially worried about the quality of water in the London area. I try not to drink London tap water. I find it rather disgusting. I drink mineral water and I believe that my habit is shared by many others because sales of mineral water keep rising dramatically. The Select Committee on the Environment took evidence that 30 per cent. of people have water which is extracted from lowland rivers. We use our rivers as sewers, so those poor people are drinking water which is 10 per cent. sewage. The Thames, too, is used as a sewer. We know of sewage works which are so old and decrepit that they disgorge their contents directly into the Thames.
  There are also doubts about the quality of the ground water in the Thames valley area, which is used for gravel and sandpit digging. Once those pits are dug, they are filled with domestic and building refuse. The end result is that the dilute and disperse policy in this very permeable area is a recipe for pollution of our ground water with leachate. Increased extraction of water from the upper Thames area will only add to the strong pressures of ground water running through landfill areas. There were no controls on leachate dumping prior to 1974 and cowboys were rife in that area. There is still inadequate control of building rubble, which produces methane and also contains nasties such as lead and asbestos, which themselves can leach out. We know of landfill areas that are leaching direct into water courses that lead to the Thames. The Halcrow report, published last week, said:
  "Landfill sites continue to be a major potential threat to ground water quality."
  In my constituency there is a 390 acre landfill site just opened by Cheshire county council. It will have a clay bund which is meant to contain the many millions of gallons of leachate that it will produce. However, I question the sense of Cheshire county council in placing that site where it has, because it is directly between the two major water courses of the north-west—the Mersey and the Manchester ship canal. Worse than that, Cheshire county council has placed it directly over a major aquafer which feeds a large part of the north-west. I believe that it feeds part of Wales, too.
  The North West water authority sent me a letter saying:
  "It is recognised that landfill sites always produce leachate and that even engineered sites can and do leak … It is considered better to risk the resources in one area for a long period rather than have several short-term risks scattered about."

  475
  That is hard cheese for Warrington, which must shoulder the risk for many other areas.
  It is against that general background that I welcome the establishment of the National Rivers Authority. I welcome the appointment of my old boss, Lord Crickhowell. Those who know Nick well will realise that bureaucratic incompetence and insensitivity will wither before him. He has an immense task. The river quality survey on which the Select Committee on the Environment reported said that the quality of rivers over the past five years had deteriorated. The DOE expects no change in that before 1990.
  In the North-West water authority, area between 1980 and 1985, 266 km of river length deteriorated in quality. The Mersey remains probably the most polluted estuarial area in Europe. In 1986, 22 per cent. of all sewerage works were breaking their own sewage discharge consents for 95 per cent. of the time.
  In many respects the Halcrow report is extremely disturbing. It says that monitoring and investigation are insufficient to enable an understanding of the distribution and behaviour of many important contaminants. It says that the level of nitrates in water is likely to rise and that the level of pesticides in water will be a serious problem.
  In my view:
  "The creation of a National Rivers Authority within a privatised water industry offers excellent opportunity for conservation, protection, monitoring and overall management of ground water resources to be co-ordinated nationally."
  Those are not my words but those of Sir William Halcrow, and I agree with him.
  The public sector's record of protecting our water is not one of which we can be proud.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. It being 6 o'clock, speeches between now and 8 o'clock must not exceed 10 minutes, and I very much hope that those following will not exceed 10 minutes either.
  6.1 pm
  Mr. Roy Hughes: So far this debate has tended to have a Welsh flavour, which is understandable because water has always been an emotive subject in Wales. As a consequence, I feel that we have a right to expect the organ grinder himself to be present rather than to leave the debate to the Minister of State, Welsh Office.
  I believe that the Bill is summed up by a cartoon that I saw in one of the newspapers a few days ago. The caption posed the question, "Who owns the rain?" That cartoon illustrates the absurdity of the Government's proposals. Water is essential to life on this planet. Surely it is logical and sensible for it to be in public ownership. Nevertheless, we must face the situation and ask what the future pattern of ownership is likely to be.
  We already know that three French water companies have taken substantial holdings in 28 statutory water companies. There is little doubt that their attention will now turn to the privatised water authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) has already said what could happen to the Wrexham water company. What will the Government do to prevent takeovers and asset-stripping? If the Government's past record is anything to go by, it will be precious little.
  476
  We are told that water authority land holdings throughout the country amount to 435,465 acres and that 97,000 acres of that land is in Wales. Much of it is unspoilt. It is not difficult to reach the conclusion that that land will be vulnerable to new pressures. The report published by the Council for the Protection of Rural England and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has said:
  "Following privatisation, pressure for residential, commercial and recreational development is likely to increase very sharply."
  It would seem that with the privatisation of water, as with Royal Ordnance, the Government are selling a property portfolio, not an industry.
  There is already talk of development and windfall profits. It has not escaped my notice that the Government are proposing to write off no less than £5 billion debt from water undertakings. In other words, that will be a gift to future shareholders. For years I have campaigned for the writing-off of the paper debt on the Severn bridge, the very gateway to Wales. But that campaign has been like knocking one's head against a stone wall. When I compare the Government's skinflint attitude with the generosity that is being shown to future shareholders in the water industry, it makes me cynical about their intentions.
  We know that when water is privatised there will be no competition. Therefore, what will happen to prices? In recent years the Welsh people have been plagued by rocketing water charges. Now there is speculation about a further 50 per cent. increase, and Ministers have made little, if any, attempt to refute such a suggestion. Stemming from such price increases there is every likelihood of a marked upward trend in disconnections.
  The Government have said that privatisation will lead to a boost in investment. But there is a big question mark about that. In any case, such arguments come a bit rich from a Government who have set such tight external financing limits for the water industry that they have had the effect of forcing up prices and curtailing urgently needed investment.
  Britain has been named the dirty man of Europe. In recent months there have been revelations about sewage, pesticides and nitrates gushing out into our water. In turn the Government, not before time, have shown concern about the environment. Perhaps the threat of European prosecutions has had something to do with that. Likewise, that newfound Government concern may assist the salesmanship needed to convince the public of the merits of privatisation.
  Admittedly, the Government propose the establishment of a National Rivers Authority, but it is, of course, a 6,000-strong quango. Among other things, the NRA will seek to control water pollution; yet environmental groups, whose interest in such matters goes back a long way, say that it will have neither the regulatory teeth nor the resources to do that job properly.
  It is suggested that clauses 49 and 50 are vague and imprecise and that no specific water quality standards have been written in. The Government's proposals, enshrined in the Bill, are littered with contradictions. Water is a natural monopoly, and there can be no competition within any water authority area. That monopoly should provide for guaranteed profits, but massive investment is needed.
  There is a public demand for improved drinking water quality; likewise, there is an urgent need to repair and replace our crumbling sewerage system. The NRA will not be able to prosecute the water companies until 1992, but 20

  477
  per cent. of sewage treatment works currently break the law. The Government recognise that immediate insistence on higher standards would frighten off investors.
  The overriding motive of every private company is profit for the shareholder. It is argued that capital will be easier to raise on the private market, but such funding will require quick and massive return. With the Government's proposals, reluctant investors will be concerned about the costs that face the industry; and increasingly hostile consumers will be faced with ever-growing bills.
  Proper investment could be provided by the taxpayer at less cost than raising capital on the private market, and control would rest directly with the Government. We are fully committed to the social ownership of the water industry, with proper provision of local services and accountability to the consumer. Water is a vital natural resource that should remain in public hands. The Bill is an abomination. It is bad for the environment and for the customer. If Wales cannot be omitted from it, the Bill should be thrown out this evening.
  6.10 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Baker: All who speak in this debate will be heavily influenced by their local experience of the water industry, and none more so than the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), who spoke mellifluously and passionately. As a mere Englishman, I feel somewhat of an intruder into a Welsh day on the Water Bill.
  I appreciate the opportunity of contributing to a debate on privatisation. I support the concept of privatisation for no reasons of dogma. I believe that it will enable us to run businesses in a better way, to provide better services to the customer, and those who run the businesses will suffer less interference from politicians. I resent the suggestion that private companies are less able to perform key functions in our society than publicly-owned companies. Companies engaged in defence contracts and companies that now participate in the previous 18 areas of privatisation are good evidence of the wrongness of that view.
  It is easy for us in Parliament to set out a system for regulating and controlling private companies which are engaged in areas of activity, such as the water industry, and I am glad that the Bill is setting about that task. But there is another reason why I am in favour of privatisation where it is appropriate, and it is one that I have not heard mentioned so far. I believe that companies in the private sector are better able to accommodate change than public sector undertakings. They are better and quicker at expanding and contracting, as the need for their services or as the market for their product demands. We have the history of nationalised industries. A recent example is the sad tale of British Shipbuilders. I think that the House will recognise the truth of what I am saying.
  At various times all businesses need to expand and contract. If they operate in a private capacity, they are better able to do so. Our company law provides a framework that is designed to enable companies to grow and contract. Large national undertakings, by their very structures, are less able to do so. Therefore, I welcome this further measure of privatisation. The advantages enjoyed by private companies will apply in this instance. In addition, they have the advantage of being able to raise
  478
  capital on the market. I am less terrified by the prospect of publicly-owned water companies than some Labour Members. That is because the water to my house is supplied by a private company. Water in Dorset is provided by the Bournemouth District Water Company, and it does an extremely good job. It does so safely and securely in conjunction with Wessex Water.
  I have some worries about the Bill, and I shall present them to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench. First, I hope that we shall not over-regulate water companies to the extent that they are not marketable. It would be extremely dangerous to the supply of good quality water if the shareholders did not wish to invest in the companies on privatisation day.
  Secondly, I am worried about price increases. Whether we pay for water services and necessary environmental controls as taxpayers or as consumers, it is necessary for charges to be increased, irrespective of whether the undertakings are privatised. The water industry has suffered from a lack of investment over many years. Indeed, that was a subject of our discussion yesterday. There is an urgent need for more investment, and that has been recognised by Labour Members. Of course, we shall have to pay for that investment. I hope that we shall not be too timid about facing the prospect of price increases. If the water industry is in private hands, it should be possible to keep necessary price increases lower than would otherwise be the case. That is another reason why I favour the privatisation of the industry.
  My third worry is based on the need for a special share. Wessex Water, the authority that has overall responsibility for the water that is supplied to and around my home, has efficient management, effective controls and good assets. I suspect, however, that it and other water authorities will be especially vulnerable in the period following the flotation. There should be a special share to enable the authorities to overcome the flotation and the move into the private sector. The special share could be of infinite duration, subject to revocation by the Government if that is considered to be in the public interest.
  Fourthly, I am troubled about connection charges. I live in an area with a high-growth population, and the infrastructure has not been properly planned to accommodate the growth. Water consumption is increasing at a dramatic rate. The efforts of the water authorities to accommodate the increased demand are laudable, but they have been maintained only with the greatest difficulty. Water authorities have no control over development and the pies will not have that control in future. If the infrastructure is inadequate, planning authorities should reject applications for development unless the developer is willing to finance the cost of new sewers and water supply. My right hon. and hon. Friends should maintain a connection charge to ensure that developments in areas with a high-growth population, such as the one that I represent, do not outstrip the ability of the water companies to supply proper services.
  Fifthly, great fears have been expressed about the sale of assets. Mention has been made of 450,000 acres of land. I have no objection to the assets being sold. That may be in the interests of maintaining, if not improving, the quality of the job that is done by the water authorities, which are required to provide a good supply of high-quality water and other services. However, the assets must not be sold in defiance of existing planning procedures. I hear the fears expressed by the Council for

  479
  the Protection of Rural England and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. If I thought that there was any ground for believing that the normal planning procedures would somehow be avoided, I would be seriously concerned. I hope that those of us who have mentioned this issue will be given the assurance that we seek.
  The Bill is an environmental measure. I welcome the creation of a National Rivers Authority. Our former colleague Sir Phillip Holland may wince at the creation of another quango, but the NRA is necessary, and it will have a very important job to do.
  I end on a local point, which I believe has national applications, with which the NRA will have to deal. The demands on our rivers and water resources have increased and are increasing so greatly that in some parts—and my area is one—the ecology and environment of rivers is under threat. Water authorities have so far coped quite well. In 1969 the River Allen where I live in Barnsley—which, as everyone will know, is in the county of Dorset —had a water abstraction rate of 1·5 million gallons a day. This year, the abstraction rate is 5·5 million gallons a day. Of course, the river level has fallen. The ecology and the natural environment of the wildlife that depends on the river are being depleted and there is a threat of damage. There is a very strong need for an NRA. Its enforcement powers must be strong. If I were selected to serve on the Standing Committee—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. John Cartwright.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. John Cartwright: I want to register a very strong objection about the basis on which water authority assets are to be sold off under the terms of the Bill. In 1974 local authorities saw their water service assets transferred to the new regional water authorities without receiving a penny in compensation. They received only an assurance that there would be a majority of local authority representatives on the boards of the new authorities. That assurance from a Conservative Administration was torn up in 1983 by another Conservative Administration when the so-called commercial business men's administrations took over the water authorities.
  The privatisation that we are discussing will remove the last vestige of any democratic involvement in the running of those essential services. More important, it will put the Government in the very happy position of selling for billions of pounds valuable assets for which they paid absolutely nothing. Conservative Members often quite rightly object to the concept of nationalisation without compensation. I suggest that privatisation without compensation is just as unacceptable.
  The case in principle for privatisation rests on the belief that market forces will generate greater efficiency by ensuring that competition makes management more sensitive to the needs of the consumer, makes it improve its service to the consumer and makes it hold down prices to retain the loyalty of its customers. That may work in many areas of industry and commerce, but, as we know, it is absolutely impossible to achieve that in terms of water and sewerage services.
  The Government accept that there is no possibility of genuine competition in water and sewerage services. Therefore, they dreamed up the concept of what they call comparative competition. Yesterday the Secretary of State for the Environment said:
  480
  "the customer will be able to make comparisons between each of the companies."
  That produces a marvellous mental picture of a typical constituent in a high-rise block of flats in my constituency staying up late at night poring over the detailed figures trying to decide which company can offer, in the words of the Secretary of State,
  "the best management to deliver exacting environmental and water quality standards at a lower price."—[Official Report, 7 December 1988; Vo. 143, c. 338.]
  Anyone who believes that that will happen is not living in the real world.
  Even if my mythical constituent, gazing at the world from his 24th storey flat in his tower block, bothered to take an interest in the concept of comparative competition, what possible good could that do him? If he finds that he is being badly served by Thames Water plc, he cannot switch his water suppliers like he changes his supermarket or pub. He certainly will not have any power to influence the operation of water plcs. Under the Bill, customers will be completely captive, bound hand and foot, to a private profit-making monopoly. The Bill bestows on private companies an effective power to levy taxes. That is a distinctly medieval concept. However, since that is brought to us by the same team that gave us the poll tax, perhaps I should not be surprised by that approach.
  This debate has already generated a good deal of concern about the impact of privatisation on the level of water charges. Yesterday the Secretary of State spoke about a 7·5 per cent. to 12 per cent. increase in prices in order to fund the capital improvements. On television a couple of weeks ago the Minister of State did not deny that the overall price increases would be between 50 per cent. and 90 per cent. by 1993. The Minister appears to be showing dissent. However, he is quoted to that extent in the Daily Mail which is not known for its virulent opposition to this Administration.
  Other people have suggested that the price increases will be a great deal more. We know that consumers will have to meet the costs of renewing aging Victorian systems, improving water quality and providing higher environmental standards. In addition, they may well have to meet the overall costs of water meter installation. Privatisation will bring the added burdens of having to pay dividends to shareholders and to meet the cost of corporation tax. Against that background, only the Secretary of State would have the nerve to say that this is a good Bill for the consumer.
  Like Opposition Members, I am concerned about the impact of rising prices on the poorest families. We know that the social security changes have brought problems because there is no longer a specific allowance for water charges which must be met from the general social security benefit. We know that some poorer consumers have difficulty paying by instalments because the existing water authorities are not flexible about accepting instalments from those who do not have bank accounts.
  The most worrying spectre of rising prices is the prospect that there will be more water disconnections for non-payment. We have already experienced an increase in the number of disconnections. If the consumers advice bureau in Bath, not an area noted for being deprived, can report 35 disconnections in one week in September. we know that the situation is serious. Given the risks to health

  481
  and the obvious hardship, we simply cannot accept that private profit-making companies should be given unfettered power to disconnect consumers.
  In the 1970s I was involved in the battle to stop gas and electricity disconnections. Major hardships were involved. However, at least there was the possibility of an alternative in terms of heating or lighting one's home if one was disconnected by a fuel board. However, there is no possible replacement if one is deprived of one's water supply.
  Last night the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State tried to assure us that a code of practice would be at least as extensive as the present one. That simply is not reassuring. The present arrangements do not stop vulnerable families from being disconnected from their water supplies. Our experience of the gas and electricity authorities shows us that codes of practice are simply not the answer. They do not prevent hardship.
  Water disconnection is a massive power. It is a much more severe punishment than many meted out by the criminal courts. It simply must not be exercised by junior officials in water companies. Water debt should be pursued through the courts like other debts and disconnection should be considered only in the most rare and extreme circumstances.
  I want to consider now the consumer protection machinery. The Minister of State, Welsh Office who opened the debate today tried to suggest that the Bill represented a universal and very effective system of consumer protection. I dispute that. The concept of a director general who has the twin roles of regulating an industry and trying to protect consumers has not worked well so far for British Telecom. That model does not inspire a great deal of confidence in the hearts and minds of consumers. The arrangements for a chain of consumer committees takes us back to the consumer consultative committees of the old nationalised industries. There was no great public confidence in those either.
  Given the monopoly of water plcs and their tremendous powers, it is essential that consumers feel that they have a genuine body, free and independent of the industry and properly resourced, which can fight on their side—a watchdog that has the power to bite as well as to bark.
  In many ways the Government's case has not been made out. They have not been able to show that, simply because they are private, the water companies will be able to offer any better service to consumers than we now enjoy. The improvements that we shall see in water quality and environmental standards are welcome, but the Government have not shown that those improvements cannot be achieved by the existing water authorities.
  The Bill offers no guarantee of effective competition. It offers no guarantee of effective protection for the consumer. It involves real danger for the poorest families in our society and I and my right hon. and hon. Friends will oppose it in the Lobbies tonight.
  6.31 pm
  Sir Giles Shaw: I cannot follow the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) in his antagonism to the Bill. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning will, I trust, accept that I shall be a strong supporter of it, despite some of the difficulties that
  482
  have been associated with it. Let me declare at the outset an indirect interest in so far as one of the companies to which I am a consultant numbers among its clients the Water Authorities Association. However, my direct interest in the industry stems from a long time ago.
  Private sector involvement in water supply has probably been one of the most consistent influences whoever happened to own or direct the water authorities. Private sector involvement came very much through the municipalities and the cities; from councillors who took an active part in ensuring that their particular city had a substantial and effective water system.
  That was certainly so in the West Riding of Yorkshire where, for example, the city of Bradford was run by citizens who, as elected councillors, came from the wool industry and created the massive reservoir system, scouring industry and all the other essential ingredients to form the basis of the textile industry in West Yorkshire. They were essentially private sector individuals taking a role in municipal supply.
  When I joined a rural district council in West Yorkshire I remember being told by a local councillor, "Right lad, there's a lot in't drain, but remember there are no votes in it". To a certain extent he was right because the problem with the municipally-owned water industry is that since the 19th century, when the citizens who made the big decisions to invest in public water supply had all the infrastructure put in, there has been little reassessment, replacement and replenishment of the infrastructure. So it was that after the period between the wars and immediately after, the municipal owners of the public water supply found a run-down system.
  Then followed the reconstruction of the water industry through statutes passed by the House, in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales played a major part. The current water authorities who invested in replenishment, struggling within the public sector to try to find sufficient resources within the external financing limits and Treasury restraints, have done as well as they reasonably could. If we want major changes in water and sewerage standards, better control of pollution and the environment, and better conservation, new sources of capital investment must be found and a speedy and effective solution found. The Bill provides a balanced arrangement for achieving that.
  I say "balanced" because the crucial element is the setting up of public sector control—the National Rivers Authority—in such a way that the private sector can flourish to the extent required to maintain the investment level in the improvement of the assets. In my judgment, the balance is just, but only just, there. My hon. Friend has designed a system of control of the water industry through the NRA which is infinitely more rigid than it is for any industry that has so far been privatised.
  My hon. Friend will share my anxiety about whether shareholders will have sufficient confidence to ensure that the industry has the asset backing that it most sorely needs. If there is to be such confidence, the operations of the NRA must be sensitive to the costs being imposed upon the industry by statute, EEC directive, the director general and the reasonable public accountability process that has been built into the NRA and the advisory committees so that the monopoly that remains does not abuse its power. The power of the NRA, a monopoly in its own right, must not abuse the private sector either which is struggling to provide a public utility for all our citizens.

  483
  I want to ask some direct questions. The first is in relation to the cost pass through provisions, which have been, I think, adequately dealt with in the Bill. However, I noted from what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said yesterday that he was anxious to demonstrate that the major cost for the revised anti-pollution programme would have to he carried by the plcs. He pointed out that the £2·4 billion was part of the pollution programme.
  I am sure that neither my hon. and learned Friend the Minister nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would wish the House to assume that the only significant increase in costs would come from those programmes which would be costed out at between 7·5 per cent. and 12·5 per cent. total increase in charges. That surely is not so. The cost associated with the pollution programmes, which, as is shown in Hansard, run on different time grades—1992, 1995, and the year 2000—may enter the industry's price stream at that level. But the industry, under direct Government pressure, has started to make significant improvements in its investment, all of which will have to be paid for through the cost price mechanism. We should be under no illusion that, although the pollution programme may cost £2·4 billion, significantly more millions of pounds require to be spent to maintain the existing system of supply, to improve the investment record and to cure a number of the problems already associated with a system that still shows signs of strain when under pressure.
  The NRA is to be responsible for land drainage operations and coastal defence work. The House may well be aware that those two important responsibilities have to date been carried by the water authorities. In most areas, certainly those with long coastlines such as Yorkshire, the problem of coastal erosion and the massive danger of inundation or other such disasters results in an authority having to have flexible borrowing powers and usually substantial reserves. The same could well be true of land drainage. I think particularly of the problem in Anglia. It is also true in parts of Yorkshire and parts of north Lincolnshire. Will the NRA's borrowing powers be sufficient and sufficiently flexible to deal with those issues?
  Schedule 1, paragraph 18, says:
  "The Authority may, with the consent of the Secretary of State or the Minister and the approval of the Treasury, borrow temporarily in sterling by way of overdraft or otherwise from a person other than the Secretary of State or the Minister, such sums as it may require for meeting its obligations and carrying out its functions … The Authority shall not be entitled to borrow otherwise than under this paragraph."
  May I have an assurance from my hon. and learned Friend the Minister that that borrowing power is comparable in every way to that currently enjoyed by water authorities in discharging the same functions; for example, land drainage investment and cost, and flood protection investment and cost? I detect in schedule 1(18) the mortmain of the Treasury having rather more inflexibility than that function of the National Rivers Authority deserves.
  Much has been made also of the fact that under the new regime, which we hope will be successful, companies can be more flexible in what they do, can extend their operations to a number of other activities, and can generally behave like the French. I am all in favour of that but hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will take note of one further point. If that objective is to be realised, it is
  484
  essential that some kind of golden share arrangement is made to protect water authorities in handling the crucial five-year period between vesting and privatisation and arriving at the full potential for their powers. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will address that aspect too, because I doubt that the new authorities will be able to behave like the French unless they are given a measure of protection from predation by French investors during the period in question.
  Under the Bill, the future will be safe for private water supply, which will improve in both quality and environmental access. But I am concerned to see that the plcs will have the flexibility to develop as I trust the House wishes to see them develop, and that initially at least they will have a measure of protection to ease them on their way.
  6.41 pm
  Mr. A.E. P. Duffy: I wish to ask two questions. First, what impact is privatisation likely to have on the scale of water charges in Yorkshire? Secondly, how adequate will the National Rivers Authority be in its monitoring role in Yorkshire?
  There is already a strong upward thrust towards increased water charges there. As Yorkshire water authority investigates the condition of its underground assets, it finds that more work needs to be done, calling for as much as £400 million investment in the forecast period. Moreover, the authority is under increasing pressure from environmentalists and others to improve the quality of its rivers. That can be done only by spending enormous sums on improving sewage treatment works. Only half of Yorkshire water authority's current capital programme is committed to water quality improvements, with most of the remainder going on the maintenance and repair of underground assets.
  To meet the Government's new requirements without prejudicing those programmes will mean increased charges to customers or increased borrowing from the Government. However, over the past four years the Government have reduced the amount that the authority may borrow to fund its capital investment programme, at precisely the time when its needs are increasing. The burden inevitably falls on customers in the form of increased charges. Twice this year I have appealed to the Minister for some relaxation of the borrowing rules, but he reminds me that Government policy is for water authorities to move away from investment based on borrowing. For 1988–89, the Government set an external financing limit on Yorkshire water authority of only £40 million, yet its accumulated deficit is more than £500 million. Last year, the servicing charges on that debt accounted for nearly half of its operating profits. It can only mean, as the chairman of Yorkshire water authority confirmed recently, that if all the money must be raised from charges,
  "then we might have to face a 27 per cent. charges increase next year."
  And that comes on the threshold of privatisation.
  Over the past five years, Yorkshire water authority has given investment priority to improvements in drinking water quality. Even today, about 1·25 million customers receive discoloured water through their taps. Further capital expenditure may also be affected by two incipient problems that water authorities need to monitor closely, especially in Yorkshire. The first relates to aluminium in

  485
  purification processes; the second to the presence of nitrates in drinking water, which hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned.
  While a causal link has yet to be made between aluminium for purification and Alzheimer's disease, the contingency must be met in Yorkshire, one of the worst affected areas, where more than 800,000 consumers are supplied with water that may contain aluminium levels above the legal limit. The same contingency thinking—and this is where money is involved—must be applied to nitrates. Some fertilisers, such as those containing nitrites, find their way into streams and aquafers, and ultimately into domestic water supplies. Yet one quarter of south Yorkshire's drinking water comes from rivers, such as the Derwent, around York, which are fed by streams and rivulets running through agricultural land. Sheffield and Rotherham benefit from the mixing of Pennine water with Derwent supplies. Not so as one moves eastward, along the south Yorkshire valley, where high nitrate levels occur in, for example, the Doncaster area. Yorkshire water authority insists that nitrate levels are below the EEC's maximum permissible concentration—but for how long?
  On 3 October 1988, The Guardian reported:
  "Bottle-fed babies may run a greater risk from nitrates in water than the Government has publicly accepted, according to a confidential Department of Health report."
  The potential problems of aluminium and nitrates in water need to be borne in mind and may call for more capital resources than is currently envisaged.
  Even though Yorkshire water authority's accumulated debt will be written off, it faces such a huge outlay as the result of upgrading sewers and pipes to meet new standards, investing in new equipment, and the need to provide against future water supply problems—and therefore such enormous capital levels and service charges—that a dramatic increase in Yorkshire water prices following privatisation appears unavoidable.
  I turn to the role of the National Rivers Authority. Nowhere was the passage of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 received more eagerly than in south Yorkshire, as it gave rise to the expectation that its rivers would become cleaner. However I understand that by 1988 river quality worsened throughout south Yorkshire, and plans to return fish to poisoned waters have been postponed—perhaps until the next century. Yorkshire water authority chairman, Gordon Jones, admitted to me in correspondence that hundreds of kilometres of south Yorkshire's rivers are still polluted.
  Sheffield city council is committed to the regeneration of its east end, yet the designated area is flanked by the rivers Don and Rother, probably the dirtiest in Britian in their local stretches. Hard though it may be to imagine today, the Rother and Don valleys once provided some of the finest countryside in all England and inspired Sir Walter Scott to write "Ivanhoe". The Rother and Don catchments were also renowned for their excellent fishing and kingfishers. I recall from my boyhood the heronries and swimming clubs that existed there.
  In a letter dated 28 December 1980, I asked the Department of the Environment what estimate has been made of the effect of its spending cuts on Yorkshire water authority's plans to clean up south Yorkshire's waterways. In his reply of 29 January 1981, the then Under-Secretary
  486
  of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), who has just spoken, described my inquiry as unnecessarily gloomy, and claimed
  "the overall trend in river quality is improving."
  Two years later, according to a survey produced jointly by the then South Yorkshire county council and Yorkshire water authority, more than half the county's rivers were still of "poor" or "bad" quality and would cost more than £100 million to clean up. That programme was never put in hand. Instead, a 19 per cent. cut in the capital programme for 1979–80 that we bequeathed to the Government meant that 32 of south Yorkshire's 46 major schemes were affected and three were scrapped.
  In May 1982, South Yorkshire county council urged the Government to implement the Flowers commission recommendation that national funds be made available to tackle the problems of river pollution arising from abandoned mine workings. In April 1987, Gordon Jones made the same plea to the Department of the Environment—also in vain. Today, perhaps as a result, south Yorkshire's rivers remain among the filthiest in Britain. Every day, tonnes of toxic chemicals and materials pour into the waterways—often illegally and out of area. Pollution on this scale is no longer confined to south Yorkshire, nor to industry. Pollution from farms has also risen steadily in Yorkshire and Humberside in recent years. The Yorkshire water authority recently announced a crackdown on illegal pollution, but environmentalists and the trade unions involved in the water industry remain sceptical. They fear that the NRA will have insufficent resources and expertise to deal effectively with massive pollution problems.
  The number of pollution control staff has been cut substantially since the water authorities were set up in 1974, but, over the same period, the amount of time-consuming monitoring work required has increased in line with ever-stricter regulations. In Yorkshire Water's southern division, for example, which is the area with the highest concentration of polluted rivers in the country, there are more than 1,800 registered dischargers over hunderds of miles of rivers, yet there are only 17 pollution control staff. Will the staffing levels for the NRA be significantly higher than the total pollution control complement that is presently available to the 10 existing water authorities? The privatisation of water is a depressing prospect for Yorkshire in respect of water charges and pollution. The Bill is entirely inappropriate to the needs of south Yorkshire.
  6.53 pm
  Mr. Gerrard Neale: It is tempting to take up the points that were raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy). I am certain that if he discussed the matter with any company that has recently been privatised, he would discover that there is relief among management that it now only has to make out a good commercial case for borrowing money on the open market, whereas previously a commercial case was insufficient and a political case had to be made—among political cases that were irrelevant to it—to obtain the sanction for cash from the Government. In that sense, privatisation offers a great deal of hope to the public sector part of the water industry.
  I should like to take up some of the points that were made by the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) who, unusually for him, made a speech that did him some

  487
  disservice. He seemed to throw all his weight against the Bill, and he did not utter one good word for it. He gave the impression that there is no need to change the statutory framework for the water industry. I must tell him that if he talked to any of the 20,000 consumers in the Camelford area of my constituency, he would find that they have no confidence in the existing statutory framework, but they find a great deal of hope in the provisions that have been included in the Bill.
  People in the Camelford area would tell the hon. Gentleman—and other hon. Members—that they realise, of course, that it is impossible to have a competitive water supply. In all logic, there can be only one institution supplying water, whether private or public. What has concerned them is the monopoly of power over that supply. Opposition Members have extolled the virtues of the public sector over the private sector. I beg them to obtain a copy of the inquiry report into the Lowermoor treatment works incident on 6 July. If they can still feel confident about the public sector water industry after reading that report, I should like to hear from them individually. It was an appalling chapter in the public water industry.
  The events that followed the dumping of 20 tonnes of aluminium sulphate into a tank of water that was prepared for going into the mains and the subsequent chapter of incidents surrounding the discovery of the events that led up to it were unbelievable. People in the Camelford area are considerably reassured by the fact that the inspectorate powers of the Department of the Environment will be increased by the Bill. After the incident, it was evident that, had it not been for the Department's officials keeping a close eye on what South-West Water was doing, consumers would have received less information and the matter would not have been brought under proper control. If my hon. and learned Friend the Minister can give an assurance that the inspectorate will be manned by experienced people and properly funded, that will reassure not only my constituents, but people in the rest of the country.
  The Minister is also aware of the incredibly slap-happy way in which the water authority moved quickly to discharge the contaminated water into local rivers and streams. That led to the wholesale killing of fish and was a flagrant breach of all that one would expect from a water authority. If there was ever a case for the establishment of a separate authority, such as the National Rivers Authority, that was it. I am certain that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister is correct in ensuring that that authority is set up.
  Other hon. Members have spoken about the authority's funding and powers, and I hope that the Minister will consider those points carefully. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) said that we must be careful to ensure that private investors have the proper incentives to invest in the companies. I agree, but we must remember that people have to drink the water, so they must have confidence in it.
  If the water authorities are to be policed properly, a strong National Rivers Authority is needed. In view of the flagrant breaches in my constituency, people will be reassured by the fact that criminal sanctions are included in the Bill. It is right and proper that if a water authority—or individual within it—is party to water that is not of wholesome quality being put into the system, criminal sanctions should apply. There is a maximum sentence of
  488
  two years' imprisonment for that. Perhaps my hon. Friend will also consider adding to the Bill a provision for a maximum of two years' imprisonment for anyone who recklessly publishes information that leads people to consume water when it is unsafe for them to do so. That should be punishable by a prison sentence if the circumstances require it. We must ensure that all people working in the water industry have a clear understanding that they have a personal as well as corporate responsibility to supply wholesome water.
  I want to reinforce a point that I have made separately to Ministers, which has come out of the incident in north Cornwall. There appears to be no statutory responsibility—and I stress the word "statutory"—for the water authorities to inform the local health authority and the local environmental health authority when it can no longer supply wholesome water. No certain information was given to those authorities in Cornwall, because there was no statutory obligation to do so. Therefore, they did not treat the incident as seriously as they should have done. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will re-examine that particular aspect and make it a statutory duty for the water authority, in any case in which it cannot supply wholesome water but has, nevertheless, allowed unwholesome water to get into the system, to tell the local health and environmental health authorities. I ask my hon. and learned Friend, in view of the Camelford incident. to give me an assurance in his winding-up speech that he will keep a close eye on the incident and ensure that the Bill covers health matters, which are the responsibility of the Department of Health. The Minister has greatly reassured me, on behalf of my constituents, and for that I thank him. I thank also my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. They have both been of great help.
  My final point is not entirely related to the Bill, and I hope that the House will forgive me for making it. During this incident in north Cornwall, it became clear that a large number of people were using hot water to cook their vegetables or to make coffee and tea.
  Mr. Robert Key (Sailsbury): And to cook eggs.
  Mr. Neale: Yes, and to cook eggs.
  The contaminants in water affect the hot water system much more seriously than they affect the cold water system. It was news to me that no water authority is responsible for supplying wholesome water by means of the hot water system. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will consider a short advertising campaign to draw attention to such dangers. It would greatly benefit water consumers.
  I welcome the Bill. It will greatly improve consumers' water supply.
  7.1 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: The last four speakers on the Government Benches said that they approve of the Bill, but they all expressed reservations about it. They fall into two groups: those who stress the role of the National Rivers Authority and who believe that its role is important, and those who are worried about its role and stress the values of privatisation. When those two elements are added together they create the nonsense that is to be found in the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) argued in favour of privatisation. In his ideological speech

  489
  he stressed the wide-ranging benefits of the Government's privatisation policy. He referred in particular to the shipyards. I suggest that he ought to look at what is happening elsewhere. The dry docks in Malta are among the best docks in Europe. They are under public control and a system of worker self-management. Workers are elected to the board of management and have an influence on management decisions. Such ownership provisions need to be examined, considered and developed by hon. Members.
  We discussed Wales earlier this afternoon. Last night the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) joined in the discussion, as was his right, although the measure does not apply to Northern Ireland. The poll tax will not apply to Northern Ireland either. If the poll tax and what was described last night as the water poll tax were to be introduced in Northern Ireland, where there is vast unemployment, social disruption and division, they would add to the unhappiness of the people of that Province. If the Government understood that point, they would realise what is wrong with such highly divisive measures for the rest of the United Kingdom.
  What will happen to the revenues that are raised when the water industry is sold off? We have gone past the stage when we were selling off the silver. We are now selling off the commodes and other basic necessities. The money that has been raised so far has been used to carry unemployment, to help to maintain it and to cut the labour market. It has also been used to cut taxes, which has led to an import-led consumer boom and the current economic crisis. The Government have flogged off the people's assets and then thrown the money down the drain. That includes this measure, which will result in fewer drains and a less effective public sewerage and water supply.
  The Prime Minister tells us regularly that the Government have no money—that they have only the taxpayers' money. If that is a simple truism—it is perhaps too simple—it is also true that the Government have no water or any public utilities. The water industry belongs to the people, but its assets are being sold off to groups within society instead of society being given the opportunity to control them. Water belongs to everybody. It does not belong to a special few. A special few will benefit initially from it, but eventually there will be a decline in public health standards if water is privatised. That will create vast problems, and more taxpayers' money will be needed to overcome them.
  Conservative Members ought to consider the history of the water industry. They should consider Edwin Chadwick's report of 1842. He stressed the unsanitary conditions in which the labouring population were living in 1842 and the importance of making public provision for sanitary conditions. If inadequate provision is made for sewage disposal, it will affect all classes of society. Edwin Chadwick believed that all classes, including the middle classes, needed a good public supply of water.
  There is a statue of Joseph Chamberlain in the Members' Lobby. He instigated many forms of public provision in Birmingham during the 1870s. He upheld the old Victorian attitude of public and civic pride. In 1894 he said:
  490
  "It is difficult and indeed almost impossible to reconcile the rights and interests of the public with the claims of any individual company seeking as its natural and legitimate object the largest private gain."
  These will be called old-fashioned, collectivist ideas. They could not be described as Socialist ideas, because Edwin Chadwick and Joseph Chamberlain were not Socialists. But what of the modern, with-it, dynamic, go-ahead Government who are introducing this measure? The ideas of Chadwick and Chamberlain are supposed to be yesterday's ideas. The Government say that they have new, fresh ideas to offer to us. However, they are old hat, ancient ideas.
  The concept of a National Rivers Authority to regulate private industries is taken from economic theorists such as Alfred Marshall in 1890. In "The Principles of Economics" he said that natural monopolies, such as the railways, had to be regulated and that certain conditions had to be laid down for them. All that the Bill means is that 1890 limited provisions are to be introduced. That is in keeping with this Government. Their political ideas go back to Thomas Hobbes in the 17th century, who thought that everybody was selfish and grasping, to the Combination Acts of 1799 and 1800 in relation to the workers at GCHQ and to 14th century medieval provisions for a poll tax.
  The Bill is just as bad as the poll tax measure. It means that those who were paying less for their water than others will have to pay more. A larger number of people, living in small houses, will need to use more water than a smaller number of people who live in large houses, and they will have to pay high water rates. This modern, with-it, dynamic Conservative Government are as old-fashioned and old hat as anything that has ever emerged from the Benches in this House.
  Just what is this fantastic people's capitalism that we are being offered? Whatever the industry, if the shares are spread among people so that there are tiny bits all over the place, and if a cartel is allowed to have only 4 or 5 per cent. of the shares, who will control the industry? It will be controlled by the small groups who get together. The dissipated masses with their bits of shares will not run the company; it will be run by small, elitist groups. As time goes on, the little people will sell to the big people. Year after year, the top companies listed in "The Times 1,000" book buy smaller groups and split areas among themselves to concentrate capital. Even if people's capitalism could work, it could do so only on market principles where profitability would be the only criterion, and it would not be one of the many criteria that are required for the proper use of resources.
  7.11 pm
  Mr. Hugo Summerson: Unlike the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), I shall not look back and attempt to give the House an inaccurate history lesson. Instead, I shall look forward to the establishment of the National Rivers Authority, which is an excellent idea. I hope that it will satisfactorily perform its role.
  Exactly what powers will the NRA have? On 30 November in my constituency a train carrying oil and paraffin in tankers was derailed. Some of the oil and paraffin got in to the River Lee and it was polluted. Will the NRA have the power to tell British Rail that that section of track is dangerous and must be made safe so that similar pollution incidents do not occur through the

  491
  derailment of trains? That is not as far-fetched as it might sound. The particular section of track is on the Gospel Oak to Barking line, and I am sure that many hon. Members know that it is one of the worst equipped and managed lines in the country.
  I have a strong constituency interest in the Bill because there are six reservoirs in the Lee valley, which take up about one quarter of the land area in my constituency. There is also the River Lee, a flood relief channel, a canal and the Coppermill works—a large water purification plant owned and run by the Thames water authority, which stores 50 tonnes of chlorine gas on site. Because it is a highly dangerous substance, the site is designated by the Health and Safety Executive. Will the NRA have the power to regulate the storage of such chemicals?
  I wish to refer to two rivers that I know well—one in the north and one in the south—that I consider to be examples of mismanagement, and explain what I hope will be achieved through privatisation and the establishment of the NRA. The River Skerne lies in the north and may not be familiar to hon. Members. It rises in the north of County Durham, runs through the pit country and through Darlington, and empties into the River Tees a mile or two further south. I know that river well because I was born and brought up in that area. When my father was a boy it was a beautiful, clear stream supporting many types of fish. One day, about 50 years ago, my father went to the river and found a black, stinking ditch. Pit washings from pits in the north of the county had been put straight into the river, which ran black for decades and supported no life. Today, the river apparently runs clear, but it has a nasty smell, has scum and foam on the surface and appears to support no life. The river is a classic example of mismanagement and water authority indifference over many decades. It is a disgrace.
  The River Kennet is in the south, and I am fortunate to fish there from time to time when I can scrounge an invitation. The water keeper is concerned about the amount of water that the river carries, because it has declined over the years as a result of abstraction. That problem can be solved only by the metering of water supplies. There is currently no link between cost and consumption. There can be dripping taps in homes, hoses can be turned on to wash the car or to water the garden and then left running, but the bill does not reflect that increased use of water. More and more people and more and more businesses are using water and there must be some form of metering so that people can see how much they are using and understand that they will be charged for the amount that they use. That already happens with other essential utilities such as gas and electricity, so there is no reason why it should not apply to water.
  There appears to be great uncertainty about funding. On the national news at 6 o'clock there was an item about a sewer collapse in Bristol. The spokesman for Wessex Water said that it faced difficulties because limits had been placed on its spending and only limited funds were available. He said that he looked forward to the time when the industry was privatised so that it could be released from the constraints imposed by Government. We sit here and talk a great deal, but we are just politicians. What do we know about running the water industry? We should give it to those who know about it—to the experts and to those who can raise the money and put it to good use.
  492
  The Bill will forge a strong link between the shareholder, the consumer, the taxpayer and the Government. For that reason alone, it will be warmly welcomed.
  7.20 pm
  Ms. Joan Ruddock: In a recent poll 82 per cent. of those questioned expressed anxiety about water pollution and only 5 per cent. believed that a private industry could be trusted to regulate itself and control pollution. Nothing that we have heard during the debate leads us to believe that those people were wrong. The Bill is not an expression of the wishes of our people; it certainly is not an expression of the wishes of my constituents.
  Although water quality is uppermost in people's minds, many other matters concern them. As has already been said during the debate, water authorities control and maintain not just tap water but sewage, lakes, rivers, beaches, reservoirs and discharges from factories. It is highly irresponsible to be tampering with the existing monitoring arrangements and to be dramatically changing the way in which water authorities are run, at a time when water quality is declining.
  Pollution incidents are up by 50 per cent. since 1980, not because of carelessness or a lack of awareness or vigilance on the part of most of those responsible for monitoring and control, but because of Government inaction and a lack of public resourcing. As a result, levels of nitrates, nitrites and aluminium compounds in particular are rising in our drinking water, with a consequent deleterious effect on health.
  Within my water authority, Thames Water, there are a dozen areas that suffer from unacceptable levels of nit rites. In Lewisham, samples have shown that on 13 occasions between 1985 and 1987 there were unacceptable levels of pesticide residues. Clearly, the polluters who are responsible for this contamination must be investigated and controlled. However, it is impossible to believe, as Conservative Members have suggested, that putting things right will be achieved more effectively by private companies committed to making profits. On the contrary, everything in the Bill makes improvements in water standards less and less likely. Let us take as an example the agency arrangements which exist in local authorities. Clearly, the Government intend to replace them with private contractors who will take over the sewerage and drainage systems. Those arrangements will put us further at risk from polluted supplies, and the possibility of increasing water-borne diseases.
  The rapid repair and sensitive maintenance of sewerage systems are imperative to the prevention of pollution and the maintenance of good standards of public health. The ending of existing agency arrangements would mean that faults would have to be reported to a remote, private water company. The body of knowledge and expertise that exists within local authorities is not duplicated anywhere in the private sector.
  The involvement of environmental health officers is particularly important and there is widespread concern that changes in agency arrangements that would make environmental health officers more remote from the managers of sewerage systems could seriously jeopardise the vital work of rodent control in sewers. Perhaps the

  493
  Minister is not aware that the rodent-borne disease Leptopirosis has caused several deaths in London in recent years.
  There are other fears relating to the land sales and asset stripping activities that we are all sure will follow this privatisation. Thames Water owns more than 4,000 properties and 17,000 acres with a value, we are told, of £1 billion. Clearly, they were worth many more billions when planning permissions were obtained. For Londoners, many of those holdings have a significance far beyond their potential commercial value. They have an environmental worth for wildlife and for recreation. They are the green lungs of those of us who live in the congested and squalid inner city. Privatisation and the inevitable maximisation of profit could result in those facilities being lost for ever.
  The Government's green veneer is already transparent. They fail to understand the need for open space to be maintained if we are not wholly to destroy wildlife in London, with all the appalling consequences that that holds for our urban environment. Some things cannot be bought and sold to the highest bidder without a disproportionate cost to society.
  I am concerned about the people in my constituency who already face enormous difficulties paying their water bills. We do not live in the prosperous south-east. The average wage in my constituency is two thirds that in the south-east, and 12 per cent. of my constituents are unemployed. The social security changes have brought greater and greater hardship and an increase in the number of water supply cut-offs.
  The supply of clean water is regarded by the world community as a basic human right and we want to retain that right. I want it particularly for the people in my constituency who cannot compete and cannot pay. It is a mark of the increasing cynicism and inhumanity of this Government that they put profit-making above that right. In doing so, they risk damage to human health and a further deterioration in our natural environment. We can be certain that the arguments put by the Opposition are the arguments best understood by the people of this country and of its capital city. They do not want water to be bought and sold by those who can best compete. They believe in basic human justice and rights. A clean water supply should be the right of every person and every nation.
  Whatever happens in the vote tonight we shall have expressed the hopes and aspirations of the people, and their view that this vital commodity should not be subject to the market place as the Bill envisages.
  7.24 pm
  Mr. Derek Conway: The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) made a calm and reasoned speech and I congratulate her on that—such is the tenor of most of her speeches—but in fairness I must point out that some of her reasoning was wrong. She was right to speak of her concern for her constituents, a concern we all have, but she must accept that her constituents have long memories. It is not enough to say that all that is to come is appalling and all that has gone before is good. Her constituents will recall, as mine do, the price increases under the Labour Government and
  494
  that during their tenure of office, capital investment fell by a third. Those are the words, not of a Tory Back Bencher, but of the Select Committee on the Environment. When the hon. Lady comments to her local newspapers, I hope that she will remind them of the historical background that has led the Government to introduce the Bill.
  I welcome the Bill, although it will increase our mailbags and increase anxiety in all quarters. The general public read all sorts of stories in the press, including scare stories, and I hope that the tenor of the debate and the opening remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State yesterday will allay the fears that many constituents have at a time of change. I doubt whether the concern is justified.
  The general public appreciate that the job of the Opposition is to try to scaremonger about the denationalisation programme and to say how wonderful nationalisation was and how wicked the Tory party's privatisation scheme is. The public have not fallen for that line in many general elections, because they are not fools and they have memories. Our constituents know that all has not been heaven under the nationalised scheme, and that when they knock on the door of a nationalised industry they can never get a name or have any effect. What pressure can they bring to bear? Many of us have found that when constituents come to our surgeries about a private company it is easier to get redress, action or sympathy from it because private companies are more sensitive to the pressure of the media or to being brought into the public forum of this place than is often the case with nationalised industries. One merely has to travel on a British Rail train that is running late to know how effective one can be in controlling a nationalised industry.
  We must be concerned about accountability. The provision for a Director General of Water Services gives more than adequate protection for consumers, as my right hon. Friend explained in detail yesterday. The director general will have to take account of the public view, and he will be able to protect consumers from unjustified price increases, monitor whether there has been a reduction in services and advise Parliament accordingly. I am sure that as a result of that monitoring of performance we shall have a much more effective service than has been possible to date.
  I used to live in an area serviced by one of the 29 private boards, and I do not recall that many people knew whether they were being served by a private water company or by a water authority. I do not think that the general public know for a moment. Opposition Members keep telling us about polls, but I wonder whether any have been conducted in those 29 areas to find out how many of the general public know who serves them and whether they believe that the service is different from the one that they will have. I doubt it. The same will be true when the 10 water authorities are privatised.
  There has been a great deal of discussion about the NRA, which I particularly welcome. It is a progressive step. While there is general howling in the press, which likes to depict the Tory party as being unconcerned about the environment, this is a major contribution to allay the concern that is felt across the House. Why is it always the wicked Tories who want to see a nuclear holocaust that will wipe out our nation's families? Why is it that we are said to want to see the destruction of the ozone layer, resulting in a hideous future for our children and do not want to see Britain's children brought up in a safer and

  495
  more pleasant land? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Some Opposition Members say, "Hear, hear". It is families with children who support the Tory party, not the strange hangers-on that keep the Opposition from getting anywhere near the trammels of government. We have as much concern as any other political party, for our children and grandchildren, and people know that.
  The Opposition have engaged in scaremongering about the Bill and about the effectiveness of the National Rivers Authority. Our people do not believe the Opposition, and that has been clearly shown in one election after another. The control of water pollution requires positive measures, and those measures must include far more effective control of effluent discharge. Those matters are of concern to all hon. Members. Sadly, some of the 10 water authorities have been responsible for such discharges. I hope the House will accept that it is not a matter of all that is private is evil, and all that is nationalised is good, because the facts do not prove that. The Bill gives the National Rivers Authority the backing that it needs to get to grips with the problem.
  I have a personal and constituency interest in the effectiveness of the National Rivers Authority in dealing with flood defences. All too regularly the part of the Severn that runs through Shrewsbury in my constituency bursts its banks. It is a matter of grave concern to my constituents that when severe weather hits that part of the country the flooding will go too far. From time to time Shrewsbury's main roads are flooded. I look forward to lobbying the NRA for the action that has not been taken by the state-owned corporation. We may have better success now that things are looking a little brighter.
  I understand that 90 to 95 per cent. of United Kingdom homes are now connected to the sewerage system, but many villages in my constituency are nowhere near that percentage. During the recess I met my local borough council to look over its plans for the villages. The council thinks that it will be 100 years before some of those villages are connected to the main sewerage system. They have not fared very well under the present regime, and I hope that they will fare better under the new one. Meanwhile, the people in those villages wait patiently.
  Another of the great scare stories put about by the Opposition is that prices will double or treble. I understand that about £1·3 billion will be needed to update our sewerage systems and to improve the quality of water. I understand that a doubling or trebling of prices would produce £6 billion. Clearly, some of the stories put about by the Opposition have not been subjected to a great deal of research. At the end of the day, people will see that the Opposition have been crying wolf on this subject, just as they have cried wolf on so many others.
  One hopes that the Bill will receive its Second Reading and then enter a protracted Committee stage. I hope that this two-part Bill will be considered in great detail. I am sure that our constituents will be relieved to know about all the consideration that the House will give the Bill. I hope that hon. Members will deal with the detail of the Bill and not engage in filibustering. This is an important matter. Sometimes people are right to criticise the method by which we consider Bills in Committee, where some hon. Members feel that they have to continue talking in order to clock up the hours. I am sure that will not be the case with this Bill and that the Opposition will put forward
  496
  genuine points of concern, in the certain knowledge that the Government will more than satisfy genuine public concern.
  According to public opinion research polls, a ratio of 5:1 does not welcome the proposal. However, that is not the response that I have had in Shrewsbury, and I suspect that it will not be the response to my hon. Friends. The measure will make a big difference to the quality of water. The National Rivers Authority is long overdue and will be welcomed by the House. The Minister has some difficult and long nights ahead of him. The Bill will bring about great improvements in the provision of water, and I hope that the House will support the measure.
  7.34 pm
  Mr. Tom Pendry: Legislation on the water industry would be timely if it addressed the many gigantic problems that face that crucial industry after a decade of under-investment. This tardy Bill will do nothing to ensure that the millions of pounds needed to repair our decaying sewers and to improve the quality of water will be provided.
  In my region of the north-west it is estimated that £5 billion is needed over the next 25 years to address the problems that have accumulated in water supply and sewage treatment. Nothing in the Bill convinces me that such investment will be made. The Bill will do nothing to ensure that the quality of water is improved. As the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) said, it took the Government an inordinate time to reply to the third report on pollution by the Select Committee on the Environment. That shows the low regard that the Government attach to trying to improve water quality.
  The Select Committee sought assurances that were not given. It asked that under a privatised system water authorities would be treated in the same way by the new rivers authority as farmers and industrialists who were guilty of acts of pollution. As we know, the existing controls are far too weak. It is time that polluters paid the full cost of the damage that they cause to the environment. Privatisation seems to be an opportunity for backtracking on existing pollution controls, even though those are inadequate. In pollution cases courts award nominal costs and that makes prosecution financially unviable. In 1984 the report of the Select Committee on the Environment said:
  "Safe, healthy water supplies are totally dependent on effective water pollution control."
  Four years on and facing privatisation we are no nearer to imposing such controls. The Department of the Environment and the Water Authorities Association figures show that there has been a 50 per cent. increase in river pollution. Why do the Government not address themselves to problems such as that instead of inflicting on people this piece of political dogma? On 25 November The Times leader lined up with the Opposition on this question when it said:
  "Anxieties about the quality of drinking water have grown and river quality has diminished. It is clear that the Government has got it wrong."
  For members of my union, the National Union of Public Employees, the problem is not academic, because as quality gives way to profit and cuts, their jobs will be at stake. I am sponsored by that union and I feel as outraged as its members about the consequences of the Bill.

  497
  The water industry requires investment but after privatisation it is the consumer who will pick up the tab. I hope that the Minister will assure the House that the burden will be passed to shareholders as well as consumers. The Minister should spell out how he thinks water charges will move, especially in my region in the north-west which faces the heaviest rebuilding burden of all the regions.
  I am glad to see that the miniature for sport, as he is effectively known, is in the Chamber. He is not wearing his Charlton Athletic tie. It is probably a rambling club tie or some sort of "sexy" tie. Millions of people will be offended by the restrictions on major sporting and recreation facilities that will result from the Bill. In Committee on the Bill about water metering I received no assurances from the Minister. He of all people should have been in the vanguard of those assuring sporting and leisure activity communities about the way in which they will be protected, but he did not do that. I do not know what the Prime Minister has got against the Minister with responsibility for sport. The poor lad has tried to defend the indefensible in measures such as identity cards for football supporters and now this Bill. All those measures come from on high, and he has to carry the can. We feel for him.
  I have received representations from many individuals, constituents and organisations who are up in arms about the Bill's implications for sport and recreation. The fine print of the Bill—or the lack of it, if that is possible in such a weighty document—could decimate water recreational and sporting pursuits on water industry and neighbouring land. Clause 7 deals with recreation, but it is no more than a grotesque parody of section 20 of the 1973 Act which places on the water authorities a duty to open up their land for ramblers and other peaceful countryside use.
  Mr. Christopher Hawkins: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Pendry: I am glad that I have the support of the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) who knows something about this matter.
  The water authorities responded well to that duty giving access to most of their extensive land holdings. Clause 7 lifts many phrases from the 1973 Act, but they are simply hollow gestures. Clause 7(3) places a duty on the water undertakers to make their land available for recreational purposes. That has already been interpreted as a way of exploiting available land in an uncontrollable way. Roderick Paul, chief executive of Severn-Trent, said:
  "I accept that we have not had to develop the skills required for pleasure-type exploitation. Where there is a scope for that, we might franchise it."
  Will the Minister responsible for sport comment on that as soon as possible?
  Mr. Christopher Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pendry: Time is pressing, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Hawkins: I want merely to support the hon. Gentleman. The important thing about clause 7 is that, although legal rights of way will be protected, all the access agreements that have been signed voluntarily have no protection. I have one of the largest national parks in
  498
  Britain in my constituency and there is no protection in the Bill for those rights of access to the Peak district and the Pennine way. I hope that the Minister will ensure that that point is considered seriously in Committee.
  Mr. Pendry: I am glad that I gave way, although I hope I shall not be penalised. I hope that the Minister is aware that the open and free nature of mountains and woodlands provide a strong attraction to many citizens. Walking in the countryside is still one of the most popular outdoor pursuits. Some 8 million regular ramblers use our open countryside each week. Perhaps the Secretary of State should follow that example and take a walk—many of us would suggest a very long walk and would like him to take the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary with him.
  Charging for access to our countryside is anathema. It is odious and alien to the British way of life. It should be clearly and unambiguously ruled out, not sneaked in at the back of a clause which promises greater access, but in reality removes it.
  The code of practice in clause 9 provides no more comfort. Like clause 7, it applies to water authorities but not to enterprise subsidiaries and subsequent landowners. It is weak and ineffective and should be replaced with adequate safeguards. The Bill does not even touch on the thorniest point, the extent to which the Government want the NRA to contract out work. How on earth can the NRA conserve the use of land and water if it gives its regulatory functions such as quality monitoring to others, perhaps even to the water companies which may be polluting the water. The Bill cuts across all recreational users of the countryside. Organised sporting pursuits will be threatened too. The Central Council of Physical Recreation rightly wants to enshrine in the Bill a strong code of practice for both water companies and the NRA. In particular, there needs to be maintenance of current recreational facilities and pricing must take into account the financially disadvantaged groups. That was never touched on by the Minister who opened this debate.
  What is needed and is sadly lacking from the Government is consultation with interested parties before such legislation is drafted. Unless the Government talk and, more importantly, listen to groups ranging from the Council for the Protection of Rural England to the regional sports councils, all the developments in recreation during the past decade will be wiped away. In my constituency it would be a tragedy if the paths and riding trails with facilities for the disabled and the water sports in the Longdendale valley were lost in a tide of political dogma. For those reasons and many others, I shall vote against the Bill tonight.
  7.44 pm
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I very much welcome the opportunity to contribute briefly to the debate. I apologise to the House for the fact that I was unable to be present earlier today, although I was here yesterday. I perceive that, regrettably, there is in the House an urban-rural divide in attitudes to the Bill. In my constituency the supply of water and its management have a peculiar significance, composed as it is partly of fen land, which requires carefully regulated drainage, and partly of light land, which requires considerable irrigation if it is to produce crops at all, and containing an important source of domestic water for a large part of East Anglia at Denver sluice. In addition, part of my constituency is deliberately

  499
  flooded each year. Washes constitute an important flood defence mechanism. Therefore, it is easy to understand why the passage of the Bill is being watched closely by my constituents. Many of its provisions touch their lives very closely.
  Many of my constituents will be as astonished as I was to learn that 96 per cent. of the population of Britain are connected to a sewer—as some of the background material quaintly puts it. I have lived half my life unconnected to a sewer, as have many of my constituents, and can only say that a considerable proportion of the remaining 4 per cent. of the population must live in Norfolk or, more particularly, in south-west Norfolk.
  Rural people do not take water for granted. It is not something which they simply drink and wash in, but something which they understand is necessary for their working lives and for their environment.
  Mention has been made of the political dogma behind the Bill. I assure the House that in south-west Norfolk it is not regarded in any way as a political problem, but as a deeply practical problem that affects everyone. The establishment of the National Rivers Authority and the office of Director General of Water Services and the powers that they will have will provide better protection for the consumer and for the environment than we have enjoyed hitherto, provided that those bodies are adequately funded. As has been pointed out, the fact that water authorities have responsibility for sewage disposal and for pollution control has always seemed to be anomalous. It is certainly a system that has lacked credibility with the public. Clearly, the functions should and will be divided, according to the proposals in the Bill.
  The office of Director General of Water Services is welcome, as he will be directly accountable to Parliament for the regulation of charges, the standard of services to the public and the proper provision of the infrastructure of water services. It will be important for the public to feel —as they do not in my constituency at present—that the buck for charges and the service provided stops with someone. I sincerely hope that the director general and his customer service committees will prove to have effective teeth. It will be interesting to see precisely how, if the Bill gains its Second Reading tonight, he will be equipped with those teeth.
  In East Anglia we are served by a very large water authority. Until the last couple of years its response to the public and its accountability have left a great deal to be desired. We also have a statutory water company, and there are not many fears in my county about changes affecting the water authority. When it was first established, the point that stuck in most people's minds was the size and splendour of the headquarters which, as its first task, it was setting up for itself. Many people in my area will be glad to have a more cost-effective and cost-conscious water authority.
  It is clear that, given their dependence on private land drainage, and on water abstraction for irrigation and flood defences, members of the agricultural community are carefully watching the Bill and its contents. Their attention is focused on the nitrate content of water. As hon. Members and farmers know, if no action is taken, nitrate levels in the United Kingdom will reach unacceptably high levels by the end of the century. East Anglia has one of the highest nitrate levels in the country and, incidentally, the
  500
  lowest incidence of cancer of the bowel. High nitrate content must be tackled by a partnership between agriculture and water services.
  Provisions for the compulsory establishment of protection zones already exist in the Control of Pollution Act 1974, although I believe that they have never been used. No one would argue that such powers should not be retained as a fallback, although, where possible, restrictions on agriculture should be voluntary. The National Farmers Union has promised its fullest co-operation with the new water authorities. As yet, clause 104, which deals with that point, contains no suggestion about how objections might be considered or, if necessary, a local inquiry mounted. I hope that the discussions that are taking place between the industry, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment will result in such provisions being included in the Bill.
  Farmers are defensive about nitrate levels in water. They accept that more intensive agricultural production is to blame for increased nitrate levels. However, they make the point that they should not be penalised for increasing production when successive Governments have urged them to do so.
  As I have said, the NFU has offered to co-operate fully with the Government and the new water authorities to reduce nitrate levels, by a joint approach. There will need to be treatment by the water industry to deal with the problem, and changes in agricultural practice which have been introduced over the past five years to reduce the problem at source. It will be a major task for the new water companies and agriculture to consider ways forward.
  No doubt some changes will be based on the range of desk studies that were jointly commissioned by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment in 10 varied localities. The Ministry believes that if farmers are obliged to restrict agricultural activities beyond what could be regarded as good agricultural practice they should be compensated. The Ministry has promised that the arrangements will be announced during the passage of the Bill. The matter is regarded with some interest and not a little anxiety.
  If the Bill receives a Second Reading, it will provide an improved service for people in the area that I represent. I do not believe that there is heartfelt support for the way in which water is provided at the moment. People consider that water authorities are not accountable. If they telephone them, they speak to an answerphone. They consider that the authorities have been altogether too lavish in the provision that they have made for themselves, whereas they should always have been concerned about the consumer and the uses of water, a commodity which, as I have tried to explain, deeply affects the economy of my constituency. I hope that the Bill will be successful this evening.
  7.54 pm
  Mr. Elliot Morley: The Bill opens a Pandora's box of issues relating to monopoly of supply, quality, the environment, rights of access, and, not least, consumer rights. It is worth remembering that the history of the delivery of safe, clean water in this country is with local authorities. Originally, the free-market system failed, and local authorities had to rationalise it and ensure quality of delivery. I have not heard any mention of the

  501
  fact that, in 1974, many local authorities passed on a great deal of valuable land to water authorities. I wonder whether those local authorities will get any share of the proceeds of the sale of land which many of them bought with their own ratepayers' money. Incidentally, many local authorities ran water services with considerable efficiency and at considerably lower cost than non-elected local authority quangos.
  The Bill boils down to the Government's constant claim that everything public is bad and everything private is good. That simplistic view is the root of the privatisation of major utilities such as water supplies. There is no evidence to support the claim. If we consider what has happened to privatisation projects, such as the contracting out of cleaning in education establishments, we find some spectacular failures, which are well charted in a Trades Union Congress publication entitled "Contractors' Failures".
  I noticed a letter in today's edition of The London Evening Standard—one of the Tory party's house papers —entitled "Gas, for the record." It is from Mrs. Donaldson of Huntsworth Mews, NW1—not a Socialist stronghold. She outlines a diary of events from 19 August to 25 November and all that she went through in getting a central heating boiler replaced. Her final paragraph, entitled "Conclusion", states that, since privatisation
  "Absolutely nothing has changed at British Gas!"
  That is a fair comment. I am not saying that British Gas is particularly inefficient—it was a fairly efficient organisation before privatisation—but things have not changed. It is certainly not my experience or that of that consumer that things in the private sector have got any better. However, there have been one or two changes in British Gas. For example, there has been a 47 per cent. increase in gas disconnections. British Gas has been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for abusing its monopoly powers. There have been one or two little changes since privatisation.
  British Telecom is not a great advertisement for the success or efficiency of a privatised utility. The Consumers Association, in its report, stated that the majority of business users who answered its questionnaire said that the quality of service had gone down since British Telecom was privatised, and that claim was backed up by the majority of domestic consumers. The claim that things are necessarily better in the private sector than they are in the public sector does not stand up to examination.
  How will consumers be affected when things such as water meters are inevitably brought in? There is no doubt that water price rises will be considerable. The Confederation of British Industry put the figure at about 30 per cent.
  Part of the problem with water privatisation is that it has suffered from completely artificial restraints. It is nonsense to say that it can raise more capital in the private sector than it could in the public sector. It has not done so, only because it has been refused permission to borrow privately, and it has suffered from artificial cash limits. In my constituency, investment in a multi-million pound food factory was jeopardised because there was some doubt whether the local water board could provide the infrastructure for effluent treatment. That factory could have been lost because of the artificial restraint imposed upon it by the Government. I suspect that industrial
  502
  consumers will find a considerable increase in effluent disposal and water charges. There is no great benefit to industrial or domestic consumers.
  One of the most objectionable things about water meters is that they will penalise those people with families on low incomes. Those people will be forced even further into the poverty trap because their water bill will increase considerably.
  There will also be problems for people who live in rural areas. The Bill will replace section 30 of the Water Act 1973 and allow the new privatised water companies to charge differential rates for providing water and sewerage services to the community. Under the new legislation, people who live in isolated villages and on farms will be asked to pay differential water rates when, under the existing leglislation, those costs are spread out evenly among all consumers. How will constituents in rural areas react when they find out that that applies to them?
  The environmental aspect of the issue is important to me. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) is present to hear my comments. Among the things that has given me a lifelong interest in natural history was a visit to Lake Vyrnwy with the Merseyside natural history association when I was a teenager. The fact that I had access to that site, which is managed as a nature reserve by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds—one of 77 sites on water authority property—has had a lifelong effect on me. I am worried that other teenagers from inner cities will be denied that experience. Such access will be lost, because of the high charges that will be imposed by the water companies. Under their obligations in the Bill, they will have to maximise their profits by charging for leisure use of and access to their land.
  I welcome the setting up of the National Rivers Authority. That is a step in the right direction, but we could have had that without going through the whole privatisation process. However, I am concerned about funding arrangements. The NRA will be left with the state and will receive a grant from the Government. It will not be funded through a levy on the water authorities or through a share of their income. Therefore, it will be vulnerable to the cash limits imposed on the public sector by the Government. Will it have the resources to carry out its role in flood defence and drainage work? Will it be able to meet its obligations to conserve nature in water authority areas and to enforce the regulations laid down in the Bill? There is no obligation in the Bill for a report on environmental support and no obligation for the NRA to employ people responsible for conservation.
  There is also some doubt about the consultation arrangements—for example, in respect of the regional rivers authority advisory committee. It does not appear that people involved in conservation organisations will automatically be represented on that body. That problem must be resolved.
  Clause 7 is contradicted by the need to make a profit. It is all very well having a code of conduct, but that is undermined if a company's main obligation is simply to maximise its profits.
  I am also worried about the fact that many of the NRA's obligations can be contracted out. Some of them can even be contracted out to the water plcs. The water plcs may, therefore, win the contracts for the important monitoring work which will enforce the law but, at the

  503
  same time, undermine the NRA's position. The contracting-out might by won be people who cannot do it properly.
  I have an interest in wildlife and nature reserves on water authority property. I am an elected member of the council of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Many hon. Members will have received briefs from organisations such as the Countryside Commission, the Ramblers Association and the Royal Society for Nature Conservation. Those responsible bodies reflect the opinion of millions of people in this country and express grave doubts about the legislation. They have made it clear that they do not believe that the Bill will be of advantage to the environment. The Royal Society for Nature Conservation's news release has the headline:
  "Water privatisation proposals are no charter for wildlife."
  The organisation makes it clear that the Bill does not go far enough and does not guarantee the protection of the natural environment or access to the areas involved.
  Areas such as mine, which are predominantly rural, have problems with nitrate pollution. We are concerned to know whether the privatised water authorities will make available investment to deal with that problem. We are also concerned that the privatised authorities will not make available the money for the enormous infrastructure replacement that is required in many parts of the country. The privatised water authorities will have to pay corporation tax, and, as I understand it, they will no longer be eligible for European regional development fund grants for infrastructure investment. This is a considerable loss in terms of subsidy.
  Many other issues in the Bill need to be clarified. I cannot forecast what the outcome will be, but it is safe to predict that the Bill will mean yet more looting of public assets, more speculators lining their pockets, the public paying higher prices for a service that was delivered efficiently and cheaply in the public sector and no guarantee of an increase in quality or an improvement in service to the consumer.
  8.6 pm
  Miss Emma Nicholson: Thank you very much for calling me in this most important debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was fortunate to serve on the enabling committee where I learned a great deal about water metering and an enormous amount about the water industry in Yorkshire. Perhaps I can take my revenge for a brief moment or two by talking about the water industry in the south-west.
  I apologise for missing a few hours of this important debate today. I was here yesterday. However, I arrived today about three quarters of an hour ago. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me when they learn that I have been celebrating my father's 87th birthday. My father is a former Member of this place. Hon. Members will guess that, for the past few hours, water has been measured more by its capacity not to dilute whisky too much than by its real importance.
  Water is the most important thing of all. Surprisingly enough, we can live without food for quite a few days, although one might not think so in this building where there are so many places to eat. However, we cannot live without water. I have spent quite a lot of time working in developing countries. One appreciates the crucial importance of water in life when one sees women walk for half a day to fill some wretched pot with a scrap of water
  504
  that we would use to wash up after a meal and when one knows that diarrhoeal diseases in children are cut by 50 per cent. by the simple means of teaching mothers to take water for their children to drink from above, not below, the place where they discharge human effluent. One also understands why projects involving camels, such as the farm project in Kenya, are important. It is because camels store water. That is why I value so highly the water industry's own charitable project for water overseas—Water Aid. Water matters to human beings and one can see that clearly when one works in developing countries.
  I wonder whether we can use all these important lessons about water in this country. Have we watched the Golden Horn being cleaned up? That vast area, which was so difficult to water, is fast becoming much cleaner. Have we taken these lessons on board in the United Kingdom? We are in a crowded island with increasing industrial pollution. A mistake by a foreman turning a tap the wrong way can kill off water quality in a river for several weeks. Farm effluent from raising cattle indoors, which can be equal to that produced from a small town, can, if there is a mistake, cause great damage to water quality in rivers. With intensive farming, have we looked closely enough at ways of providing the sort of water quality that we need? Under this flood of effluent from people, industry and farms, the quality of many of our rivers has declined in recent years, and we have to put it right.
  In my constituency we have a famous and beautiful river—I am sure that all hon. Members know it—the Torridge. It is famous because of Tarka. Last Christmas, hon. Members may have seen a programme on television called "Tarka's Troubled Waters." Mercifully, it was out of date by the time that it was shown. I was heavily criticised for saying that the Torridge had been badly polluted for many years, but was now being put right again and would soon be properly right.
  The improvement is the result of a major farming programme. Many farmers who use intensive methods throughout the United Kingdom do not realise the extent of the pollution that they have been causing. South-West Water in my area—and I am sure that equivalent water authorities in many other areas have been trying just as hard—has been running an effective farm pollution programme merely by going out and talking to farmers about pollution and helping them with finance to put it right. As a result, there were more brown trout in the 12 months from Boxing day last year than for many years. The quality of salmon fishing has also gone up.
  It can easily be said that these are minor interests and that only a few people want to go salmon fishing, because, although angling has the largest following of any sport in the United Kingdom, fly fishing is quite rare. However, in my area, as in others, we derive much of our drinking water from rivers. Therefore, we want the water to start off as clean as possible, so that it does not have to be put through massive cleansing programmes. Because of the success of that farming programme in our moorland hills, I was more than delighted to welcome the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about a week ago of the fact that he is putting £50 million into farm pollution programmes. That is really exciting. We are on the way, and I am pleased about it.
  I was even more pleased when South-West Water committed itself to full treatment of this river and of Bideford sewage in the estuary in which the river ends.

  505
  Therefore, we shall have a pure and gleaming Torridge before long, as I promised last year on television, and a cleaned up estuary. I welcome the visit that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is to make on 13 January. We shall be able to show him the progress that has been made. The river is not unique. There are others like it. We have to set our sights on cleaning them all.
  I shall also be taking my hon. Friend to see a small area called Lifton down. I bring this to his attention because the water supply there has been disgraceful. One might just as well have been living in the Sudan. If one turned on the tap, put in the plug and waited for a day, one would be lucky if the bath were half full. People have shown me water straight out of the tap that is almost a third sand, or something worse. Is it right that water should be like this in the United Kingdom, a developed country in the European Community, in this day and age? Bere Alston is a tiny village where a mother and baby have not been able to get fresh water in the middle of the day for hours at a time.
  Both these areas will have the proper amount of capital invested in them by South-West Water to ensure that these problems are solved. Should it have taken 15 years for Lifton down water to come right, 20 years for Bideford sewage and the Torridge river to be cleaned up, and seven years for Bere Alston to have its problems solved? The raising of standards is one of the reasons why I welcome this Bill so very strongly, as does South-West Water, whose chairman, Keith Court, has worked tirelessly to raise water quality in the south-west. He has carried out a remarkable job. I am delighted that he is in post and will be continuing as chairman of the new plc.
  What is necessary for the development of the infrastructure for water in my area, and I would guess in those of many other hon. Members, is intensive injections of capital. That is difficult to achieve when one is in competition for national funds against other great social needs, such as child care, health facilities, nurses' pay and the NHS. It is difficult to get the right amount of capital when social needs are so pressing. I believe that our new plcs will be able to make much faster progress in developing the infrastructure needed to get water quality up to the standards that we all quite properly demand when more options are open for finance once they are in the private sector.
  On top of that, it will be possible to spread financing over a longer period. The great difficulty of working within Government constraints of 12-month intervals is that it is easy to go for a stop-go policy and not think what that means. It means stop on 31 March and start again on 1 April. One is tied to annual budgets when working within the Government and public sector funding programmes.
  There are many good factors in the Bill. One of the best is that it demands new, higher standards for water quality within the United Kingdom, and I most strongly welcome that. We shall be shifting from expecting an average level of attainment in water quality to a higher standard of attainment in both the quality of water and its pressure —we are back to that half-empty bath—and to higher environmental objectives. We must willingly accept those environmental objectives. People are more and more conscious of the environment, and it is crucial that we respond to the desires and wishes of the general public.
  506
  Standards will be much tougher for the new public limited companies. They will be required to produce much higher standards on effluent levels, and we all want that. It will be hard for them if everything has to be perfect on day one. I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will already have thought of the need to be practical and reasonable with the new plcs on such matters, or they will have pressures to which they simply cannot respond. That is a most important point that I ask my hon. and learned Friend to note.
  It is also important, although it may seem an unpalatable point to make at the moment, to have within the pricing structure of the plcs the opportunity to obtain a reasonable rate of return. These new regulations will create water quality standards in the United Kingdom that will be at least the equivalent of the highest in western Europe. The Bill will require and create sewage disposal standards that will match European directives. That is why I so greatly welcome it.
  I am conscious of the fears expressed by some hon. Members both yesterday and today about the need not to create a private monopoly in supply. However, I believe that the new inset competition and the pledge in the Bill that the plcs will operate in a "climate of effective competition" will be carried through and will create the necessary competition.
  The split must occur. I welcome the creation of the National Rivers Authority, because the water authorities will no longer be required to be both poacher and gamekeeper. It is beyond human endeavour to be required to fine oneself for breaking the law. People are just not made that way. It certainly has not been the way in which the water authorities have been made. It is right and proper that the National Rivers Authority, with proper people and financing, should be responsible for the quality of the rivers and that the plcs should provide the water and sewage treatment.
  I am conscious of the importance of safeguarding conservation and recreation. I note that in the Bill prior consultation is required before there is any development of sites of special scientific interest. In my constituency, there is a large part of a national park. I wonder whether the Minister would consider extending that need for prior consultation to national parks. That would reassure many people. The water authorities have built up an excellent relationship with the national parks, and I would not wish that relationship to do other than flourish under the new arrangements. I believe that that sort of reassurance is all that is required to maintain such a relationship.
  I warmly welcome the Bill.
  8.21 pm
  Mr. Martyn Jones: When I had a proper job, I worked for a major user of water—although the company would probably be reluctant to admit it—the brewing industry. In fact, the brewery in which I worked is the major water user in Wrexham and, bearing in mind the lack of industry in the area, it is probably the main user in Clwyd. It was often my task when working in the laboratory to check on effluent and it was always my responsibility to monitor incoming water.
  The supplier of the water is a private company set up by statute, which my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) referred to as a potential takeover target by, possibly, an overseas interest. It is an example of

  507
  the much-vaunted Victorian values that we are regaled with by the Government, because they saw fit to control such monopolies very tightly indeed by Act of Parliament.
  With this Bill, we will create private monopolies with no such controls. It is obvious even to the dullest person that the opportunity for competition in what is described in economic theory as a natural monopoly does not exist. With no upper constraint on prices, and the provision that extra costs incurred in maintaining standards of quality will be passed on to consumers, the consumer will pay, not the polluter.
  What will be created is analogous to providing local supermarkets that consumers are obliged to use. Consumers would have free access to the store but a tax would be levied on local residents to meet the costs incurred. How can there be any increase in service or consumer responsiveness when additional business yields additional cost but no additional revenue? That is dogma gone mad.
  How can the National Rivers Authority perform such a wide task? The task is obviously necessary. Indeed, if a chain of supermarkets were set up like the water utility public limited companies, there would be overwhelming public demand for control. That will only apply to the National Rivers Authority when things begin to go wrong, which is likely. Unscrupulous polluters will drive a coach and horses through such a body. Unscrupulous water utility plcs, which are potential and, indeed, actual polluters, could flout the provision of control. In fact, they will continue to be allowed to pollute anyway, because of the previous lack of investment. How long that continues will, of course, depend on how quickly investment can be attracted, which, in turn, will depend on how much profit can be generated by an increase in charges, which will go directly into private owners' hands.
  As well as having experience of the industrial use of water, I have a constituency interest, because large areas of my constituency are owned by water authorities and I have a large new reservoir, neither of which are inside a national park, and are, therefore potentially asset strippable by new owners. A long length of the Dee runs through my constituency and that attracts a large number of recreational users, such as anglers and canoeists. It is also the main aquafer from Bala, Clocaenog and Celyn to abstractions for Liverpool and Chester, as well as Wrexham and Deeside. The potential for conflict and chaos is enormous. There is no protection of access for anglers and ramblers. Plenty of potential exists for charging for those recreational activities, but little opportunity for the legitimate representation of the interests of those who use the river.
  The NRA will have no effective local management structure. In my constituency, the Dee is a special case as it is arguably at present the most controlled and regulated river system in Europe. The control of the flow is crucial to fishing interests. General targets for water utility plcs will not be good enough. The control of the flow must stay in the public sector and must be enforced for the benefit of local recreation as well as profit. Local management boards are needed to give the NRA teeth, or it will be an under-funded and ignored paper tiger.
  A conflict always exists between profit and service. Private non-monopolies resolve that by realising that service is necessary or competitors get the profit. Private
  508
  monopolies simply screw the customer, who has no choice. That is what will happen with water. It is political dogma taken to the point of fetishism.
  8.25 pm
  Mr. Tim Devlin: I am sure that the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) did not mean to mislead the House when he claimed that the CBI said that price increases of 30 per cent. were expected. I consulted the parliamentary brief to which he referred and I saw the sentence:
  "However we have noted certain reports suggesting that privatisation may result in increases of up to 30 percent".
  That does not, in fact, emanate from the CBI.
  I have listened with interest to the speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) talked about the quality of water in east London where I live during the week. I understand that water in that area has usually been drunk five times before it reaches the lips of an east Londoner. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) commented on the river Skerne, which is in the north east. Having heard one northern Member talking about London and a London Member talking about the north, I was tempted to talk about somewhere in the south-west. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) set out the worries of her constituency so well that I need not bother.
  Water supply and sewerage are the most important of our public services. I welcome the Bill because it is designed to provide better quality water than we presently enjoy and at the lowest price to the consumer. It will free the water service of Treasury controls and it will provide attractive share ownership possibilities for many in the industry and for the public.
  There is no doubt that the introduction of comparative competition in the water industry will provide greater incentives to our water providers to keep supplies clean. I do not for one moment accept that privately-owned water companies will be motivated solely by shareholders' profit, which has not proved to be the case with British Telecom or other industries that have moved into the private sector and where there have been significant service improvements.
  The new statutory water undertakings will only carry on the good work already done by the 29 privately-owned companies, which provide one quarter of the nation's water. In the north-east, where I come from, the Hartlepool water company provides a good example of how good, clean water can be provided by a privately-owned company. Last night the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said that these private water companies were "statutory water companies" and not private enterprise. I asked whether the Opposition would find it acceptable for a number of privately-owned companies, which had statutorily defined duties, to come into being. That question was never answered. However, I believe that we have heard the answer in today's debate.
  As usual, we have heard all manner of scaremongering and at times like this it well behoves the House to recall the scares put about when we abolished the metropolitan authorities or when we deregulated the buses. Part of my constituency is a large rural area which has a better—not worse—bus service as a result.
  I want to suggest one possible amendment that the Government might care to consider. When water quality

  509
  suffers due to some catastrophe, such as that recently suffered in the south-west to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) referred, or when the water supply is cut off, as it can be from time to time even in the best regulated system, rebates or even compensation payments should be made to customers.
  Customers are entitled to expect an extremely high level of performance from the new water service pies created by the Bill. Those plcs will be subject to the stricter pollution controls that will be imposed upon them by the National Rivers Authority. They will also have to respond to statutorily defined quality standards that will be higher than present. That will include directives on water availability, pressure, constancy of supply and response times to repair and billing inquiries. The customer must be able to notice those improvements and obviously there must be a reserve power in the hands of the Secretary of State to intervene when those plcs fail to reach the targets.
  I believe that the most effective pressure on water service pies would be a statutory method of automatic compensation or rebates when a company fails to meet standards or cuts off the water supply. That would be a simple, ready-at-hand scheme, so that a customer is ensured of receiving satisfaction without having to mess about and set in motion long-winded procedures.
  It should be noted that, where a water authority owns land in a national park—for instance, 37 per cent. of Northumbria Water's land is in the national parks—there is no question of that land being sold to property developers for despoliation. Land in national parks is guaranteed to be accessible to all by the legislation that established them. Rights of way continue irrespective of ownership and it is only sensible that the Bill includes safeguarding powers for water catchment areas. Therefore, let me speak to those outside these walls, for example, the Ramblers Association, whose concern I readily share. That measure of concern, however, is being unnecessarily aggravated and, if necessary, that concern can be cured by drafting amendments in Committee.
  We heard some amazing things earlier about sewage treatment and land being sold off. Here, for the first time in decades, is an opportunity for water service plcs to raise money from other than the Treasury to invest heavily in the sewers. That opportunity, however, is condemned by the Opposition. We are also being given an opportunity to ask water authorities what use they have made of taxpayers' money. If it is true that water authorities have prime sites and other surplus land and buildings that are not being put to the best use, why are they still in water authority ownership? Why have those assets not been sold off long ago so that the taxpayer can benefit from the capital received? The purpose of a water authority is to provide water, treat sewage and to check water pollution, not to own land for its own sake. Water service plcs should have no compunction, therefore, in disposing of land that is not connected directly to their primary purpose. Any land disposal will, of course, still be subject to the planning controls of the specific area.
  The House may be aware that my constituency includes a long stretch of the River Tees. We produce the best bottled drinking water that can be obtained in the United Kingdom—Northumbrian water. A private Bill will be introduced shortly to erect a Tees barrage. That will raise
  510
  the water level by 2·65 m throughout the length of my constituency. Undoubtedly that will have an effect, not only on the farming community but on those businesses that currently emit effluents into the river. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister should bear in mind that his Department deals with the environment as well as inner cities. The barrage is an inner-city initiative that will undoubtedly have serious effects on the surrounding countryside and on the environment. Can my hon. and learned Friend tell me whether a full environmental assessment will be undertaken on the River Tees before that barrage is erected? Otherwise the NRA will find itself saddled with a river that is half clean and half filthy. It will then have to pick up the bill, and the costs to the local consumer.
  The Opposition have erected a barrage against the Bill from which very little common sense has leaked. By contrast, the Government will erect a barrage on the River Tees that will open up a wave of new opportunities on Teesside in the next century.
  8.35 pm
  Mr. Eric Martlew: I must place on record my total opposition to the Bill. The idea of privatising the nation's water is something that must be spoken against. The Labour party must commit itself—let us use an old-fashioned word—to taking the water industry back into public ownership. There is no doubt about that.
  Opposition to the Bill is not apparent only on the Labour Benches, because there is opposition to it throughout the country. Given that there are so few Members on the Conservative Benches tonight, I suspect that there is also a lot of secret opposition within the Conservative party.
  A recent opinion poll showed that more than 80 per cent. of the population were against the privatisation of water. Why is there such massive opposition? The attempt to sell off the water industry has made consumers think about the service that they receive, and most of them are well satisfied. Today, 99 per cent. of British households are connected to the public water supply—they have water on tap—and 95 per cent. of households are connected to the public sewerage system. Therefore, when they turn on the tap they get clean water, and when they flush the toilet the sewage goes away.
  The British people know that the system works and, unlike their experience with British Telecom, they encounter few problems with it. It can take days to get a telephone line replaced, months to get a telephone installed, and one is extremely lucky to find a public telephone that works. In comparison with the privatised industries, people are pleased with the service that they receive from the water authorities and companies.
  The public are also against privatisation because of the pressing environmental problems. The pollution of our rivers, lakes and course lines have been mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House. We realise that massive sums of money are needed to put things right. The public do not believe that profit-hungry private water companies will be prepared to put in the money that is needed to solve the environmental problems. They are also well aware that the Conservative Government will not make those private water companies invest their money to solve those problems.

  511
  People are also against privatisation because they know from history that the privatisation of water does not work. They are aware that in the 19th century the private sector failed. If any hon. Member cares to look up 19th century copies of Hansard he will see that Act after Act was passed to force improvements in water standards. At that time people were dying from cholera and typhoid because the private sector would not put resources into the water industry.
  By 1913, 80 per cent. of all water was in local authority ownership, and that has remained the position. Privatisation did not work, and Governments of both Liberal and Conservative persuasions put water into public ownership. The position in my constituency was little different from the national one. It suffered epidemics of cholera and typhoid that killed many citizens. The local authority decided to spend ratepayers' money to provide an adequate sewerage system and a good water supply system, and that policy served the city well. It got rid of the city's health problems and allowed it to expand.
  In 1974, the citizens of Carlisle were not too enthusiastic about the proposal of the then Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), who is now the Secretary of State for Wales, to introduce the present water authorities. They had a cheap water system that worked, and they were not far away from the supply. We in Carlisle realised that if we went in with North West Water, our £10 million-worth of assets would go into the general pool and our rates would increase as we would be called upon to pay in part for the problems of Merseyside and Manchester. We accepted that, but we are not prepared to accept robbery of the £10 million. It was taken from the citizens of Carlisle, made available to the water authority and not paid for through taxation. It is now proposed to sell off the water authority, and the people of Carlisle consider that to be an act of robbery. They regard those who occupy the Conservative Benches as pirates. That is why there is opposition to the Bill.
  Last week I decided to visit the local sewage works in my constituency. Those who work there were quite surprised to be visited by a politician. It is not often that politicians visit and shake hands with workers at sewage plants. We visit hospitals and old folks homes, but not sewage works. Before the Third Reading, I recommend all hon. Members to visit what is the most important building in their constituencies. Without sewage works, the civilisation that we know cannot exist.
  During my visit. I asked questions about profitability and how it could be improved. I was told that it would be possible to cut labour costs. I was told that the men were not paid very well, but that wages could be cut slightly, which would increase profitability. I was told also that the work force could be reduced, although that would lead to an increase in pollution problems. It was explained that in the event of an overflow, and with insufficient staff, the rivers would become polluted. It would be possible to reduce the number of chemicals that are put on the sludge. The chemicals reduce the smell, and anyone who lives downwind from the sludge will consider that to be important. There is no profit to be gained from using chemicals, and so the number used could be reduced.
  I left the sewage works with the knowledge that we have an efficient system in my constituency. I know that £2 million was spent during the 1980s to update it.
  512
  Privatisation would lead only to a worsening of the system for those whom I represent. There is no doubt that sewage works must remain in the public sector.
  To whom does water belong? I was taught at school that it was a gift from God. We are all familiar with these lines:

  "We plough the fields, and scatter

  The good seed on the land,

  But it is fed and watered

  By God's almighty hand".

  Little did I realise that economists would seek to calculate the value of a raindrop. The Secretary of State is taking up one of Bing Crosby's old songs, "Pennies from Heaven". A value is being placed on a raindrop. It is being costed, and then raindrops will be given away to the private sector. In the City, stockbrokers and others are singing the Gene Kelly number, "Singing in the Rain". They are all to make a fortune out of it.
  The Government are altering the meaning of our songs and our sayings. No longer will we be able to say, "He spends money like water" when describing a spendthrift. That description will have exactly the opposite meaning. It will be the description of a Scrooge-like person with mean thoughts; in other words, someone like the Secretary of State for the Environment. There is one saying that brings together what the Government are about with water privatisation and with every piece of legislation that they have introduced. The Government
  "knows the price of everything and the value of nothing."
  8.44 pm
  Mr. Ian Gow: There is no need for the House to wonder what you were doing at this time last evening, Madam Deputy Speaker. You were then, as you are now, presiding over our affairs. I begin by commending to the House some of the words that you used from the Chair last evening. You said:
  "The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) is perfectly in order to speak on the Bill. He is an hon. Member of this House."—[Official Report,7 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 389.]
  At the beginning of the afternoon it seemed to be very much a debate for Welsh Members. I wondered whether I would be disqualified by reason of the fact that I am a Scotsman who represents an English constituency. The debate was begun this afternoon by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Welsh Office, whose remarks were taken up by the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). It is a day on which Members of the United Kingdom Parliament are entitled to speak, and that includes those who come from Scotland, to which the Bill relates only in small part, and including, as you reminded us, Madam Deputy Speaker, those who come from Northern Ireland, to which the Bill applies not at all.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning will have reflected as he piloted the Local Government Finance Bill through the House, and as he starts piloting the Water Bill through the House, that the enormous benefits that he believes each measure will confer upon Her Majesty's subjects will be withheld deliberately from those who live in the part of the kingdom that is known as Northern Ireland. It is a matter of legitimate comment when debating the Bill's Second Reading that the benefits that it will bring are to be withheld from Northern Ireland.

  513
  I remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you will, the words of the Conservative party's general election manifesto. We have had a most agreeable debate and Opposition Members have made assertions, quite legitimately, that the Bill is unpopular. That is a proper claim to be made by Opposition Members. No one can say, however, that the introduction of the Bill was a surprise. Whatever legitimacy is conferred upon legislation that is introduced in a party manifesto—some may think it scant—it has certainly been conferred upon the Bill.
  I shall refer to the words that were approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when the Cabinet came to give its final approval to the manifesto on which the Conservative party fought and won the last general election. The manifesto stated:
  "The water supply and sewage functions of the water authorities will be transferred to the private sector."
  It was a clear sentence and a short one. It was shorter than many other sentences that appeared in the manifesto and was incapable of being misunderstood.
  The Bill is even longer than the Bill that became the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Although the Bill takes up hundreds of pages and must be in two parts because it is so large, it is implementing precisely the undertaking given in the manifesto.
  Nor has the proposal for the privatisation of the nine water authorities in England and the one in Wales been a hasty operation. It is nearly four years since the then Minister at the Department of the Environment informed the House that the Government were considering the privatisation of the water industry. There is even a precedent for what we are doing, to which reference has been made today.
  Nearly 25 per cent. of our fellow countrymen derive their fresh water from water companies which are privately owned. Everyone knows that those water authorities are subject to a strict legislative framework. They are different from all other companies. However, those 28 or 29 companies have one thing in common with private sector companies that are not like water companies. They are genuinely, fully and completely owned by the private sector. They are subject to control and to special rules, but in terms of ownership the 29 water companies are privately owned.
  Those who decided to invest in the private water companies, those who decided to subscribe to their loan stock or to their debentures, did so because they believed that they would get a proper rate of return on their investment. Opposition Members must realise that because the ownership of a water authority, or, as they will become, the ownership of a water company, is transferred from the public to the private sector there is no reason to believe that that change of ownership will mean that there is a commitment to lower standards or to standards necessarily better or worse than those that apply to the water authorities today.
  I believe that there are significant advantages in transferring the water authorities out of public and into private ownership. By making the transfer there will be genuine public ownership of a kind that does not exist today. I mean no discourtesy to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister or to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, but I believe that their ownership, for that in effect is what it is, of the nine
  514
  water authorities and the ownership of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales of the one water authority in Wales is harmful to the proper provision of fresh water and the proper collection of foul water.
  I thought that I might receive just a murmur of approval when I said that I had no confidence in the superior wisdom of my right hon. Friends and of my hon. and learned Friend. The House is aware that all the members of the nine water authorities are appointed either by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment or by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Henceforth of course, after privatisation, that power of patronage, which has been one of the evil concomitants of nationalisation throughout the ages, will be removed, and not before time. My hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who is on the Treasury Bench now, are aware of that. They know that not one of the water authorities can embark on a programme of investment without the approval of the Treasury. They do not even need the consent of my hon. and learned Friend or of the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gow: I always give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Heffer: I am glad to hear that. The hon. Gentleman must be the only one who does.
  If the hon. Gentleman is so much against the water authorities being under the control of the state—and I accept that there is an argument for that, although I do not agree with him on this matter—would it not have been better to hand back many of the authorities to the local authorities? For many years I served on a water authority. I was an elected representative of the water authority of the Liverpool city council. We were responsible for the water that came to Liverpool. We were responsible for water coming from north Wales, and it used to get blown up from time to time. If we want to end patronage, why not put control back into the hands of local authorities? Not that that is necessarily the right thing to do at the moment, but it is better than handing it to private individuals, who will only want to gain for themselves and not have the interests of the people as a whole at heart.
  Mr. Gow: I do not have the hon. Gentleman's confidence in the ability of district councils to operate great enterprises.
  I have received one of those messages which in this place it is wise to obey, namely, that other hon. Members want to speak. Therefore, having received that message, I shall obey it.
  8.56 pm
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: I have listened intently to the speeches this evening, and I have read explanations in the newspapers over the past few weeks of the Government's proposals, but I have yet to find an argument that will persuade me that there is any validity in privatisation.
  Under a private monopoly there will be no choice for the consumer. By definition, there will be no competition in the supply of water. Prices must rise, because privatised companies will want to make a profit. By how much prices

  515
  will rise remains a matter for speculation. However, when we consider the profits of British Telecom, 20 per cent. of whose turnover is profit, I can only see higher water prices.
  The Government argue that privatisation somehow brings about efficiency. I cannot see any possible efficiency savings in Welsh Water. During the past 15 years it has experienced three reorganisations, and on each occasion it has cut staff. There is no fat left to cut in Welsh Water.
  I welcome the National Rivers Authority. The unsatisfactory situation whereby water authorities are both poacher and gamekeeper has long existed. However, dividing those responsibilities would have been possible within the public sector.
  I am worried that the NRA will not have the resources that it needs for the massive job that it has to do. Water pollution in Britain is a growing problem. In 1980–81 there were 11,467 incidents. Last year, 1987–88, there were 23,253—a doubling in the past seven years. That is the Government's record on water pollution. Last September we heard the Prime Minister championing environmental issues for the first time in 10 years, yet that is the Government's record—a doubling in the incidence of water pollution.
  I hope that the NRA will be able to do something about that. Only 288 of those 23,000 cases resulted in prosecutions last year—barely 1 per cent. Industrial companies were responsible for 61 per cent. of those offences. In Wales, in 1986, two thirds of industrial discharges broke the law for more than one fifth of the time. This is an area of our life in which there is little law enforcement. Therefore, the NRA has a massive job on hand.
  I hope that the Government will give the NRA the resources that it needs to tackle that job. I suspect that they will not. In the first place, the water companies will have an amnesty until 1992. Farmers have a non-statutory code of practice. Most important of all, neither individuals nor local authorities who are affected will be able to take water companies to court for such offences. Prosecutions will be left to the Secretary of State and the Director of Public Prosecutions. I fear that at the end of the day the NRA, which is a good concept in itself, will prove no tougher than the Police Complaints Authority.
  We desperately need major environmental improvements. According to the EC drinking water directives on nitrates, aluminium, lead and so on, Britain's water has above the maximum permitted concentrations. The cost of cleaning up our water supply is estimated at £5 billion or £6 billion.
  The problems of pollcyclic hydrocarbons, trichloroethylene and pesticides in the water have been referred to. Under the Government's legislation, toxic wastes can be dumped in Britain with little regulation, and it is only a matter of time before they too reach ground water, water courses and so on. The bills will amount to £10 billion or more.
  We have also heard a good deal about sewerage and sewage treatment. Most of our sewers were built in the last century and are in a state of collapse and need major investment. Rivers are regularly polluted by 20 per cent. of our sewage treatment works. According to an article in The Observer last Sunday, if we tighten up, as we should, the regulations governing sewage treatment, 80 per cent. not 20 per cent. of our works will be breaking the law.
  516
  Again, massive investment is needed to improve those figures and renew our sewers. We are talking, not of £10 billion, but of £20 billion of capital investment.
  A few weeks ago, in a television interview, the Minister talked about our water industry. He argued that £10 billion or £20 billion worth of investment could riot come from the public purse because the money was not there. What he was admitting was that, despite the Government's protestations on the environment, the water industry is not a high enough priority in their programme. That is what he was saying. The money is there. We have a Budget surplus to the tune of £10 billion this year and the funds could and should come from the public purse. I see no argument for privatisation. The money should have been made available and the Government's terrible neglect over the past 10 years has allowed the situation to deteriorate.
  No argument has been made by the Government to support the Bill. At the end of the day I abide by public opinion, and it is clear that at least 80 per cent. of public opinion is against the Bill. Yesterday we had a full day's debate in the Welsh Grand Committee, where the Queen's Speech was voted down by 26 votes to 10. I promise the House that if only Welsh Members had voted according to their consciences, the result would have been 51 votes to 7. If the matter is put to the Welsh people, I am certain that 90 per cent. of them will not want to see Welsh Water privatised.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Keith Mans: I welcome public attention being concentrated on protecting the environment and, more specifically, the water industry. They have for many years been neglected topics, and the Government's measures have at least served to air them.
  One of the Bill's chief advantages is that it will allow water companies in the private sector to borrow on the commercial market when and where they need to do so. That compares favourably with the situation that has existed for many years, during which time the majority of water authorities have been in the public sector.
  I wish to repeat some of the points that were made in the Select Committee on the Environment report on rivers and estuaries. It is clear that one of the reasons why water standards have fallen over the last few years is the lack of investment for about the past two decades A good example is that when the Labour party came to power in 1964, the previous Conservative Government having invested £400 million annually on sewage disposal, the total almost immediately dropped below that figure. It rose again through the rest of the 1960s and early 1970s, but surprisingly it fell again from a peak in 1973–74 of £900 million, at 1985–86 prices, to £400 million by the end of that decade. Therefore, I regard with scepticism the remarks of Opposition Members about how successful investment in the public sector had been when Labour was in power. The evidence produced by the all-party Select Committee suggests otherwise. Since 1981 investment has continued to rise, and I am convinced that it will continue to do so in the private sector.
  As to the National Rivers Authority, one of the chief advantages of moving water companies into the private sector is that a regulatory device will remain in the public sector. I have no doubt that the NRA will be much better at regulating and controlling water companies than has been the case under the present arrangement, whereby

  517
  responsibility for ensuring water purity has been split between water authorities and the pollution inspectorate. It was a pity that in 1974 the old alkali inspectorate, which had a lot of authority in the water industry and did a good job, was altered by the new Labour Government when they assumed office. Many of the problems surrounding degenerating water standards had their beginnings in that Labour initiative, whereby the pollution inspectorate assumed greater responsibility.
  I am convinced that the increase in investment that has taken place over the past two or three years will continue when the companies are put into the private sector. I am equally convinced that to have the National Rivers Authority and the Director General of Water Services looking after the interests of the consumer and making certain that pollution is reduced in our rivers in the public sector will be a far better way to look after water in this country. I shall support the Bill tonight.
  9.11 pm
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: I do not want to take up all the points made by the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans), but we have checked the figures for capital expenditure of water authorities under Labour and Conservative Governments. It is a simple fact, on the Library's own figures, that capital expenditure between 1974 and 1975 averaged £1,254 million a year and in the period from 1979 to 1987–88, the last year for which figures are available, it averaged £922 million a year. Those are the figures that the Library provided today.
  Mr. Mans: The figures that I quoted were for sewage disposal works and sewage disposal and I made that clear.
  Mrs. Taylor: If the hon. Gentleman chooses to be selective in that way, he should compare his figures with the overall figures for investment during that period.
  We have had a two-day debate on the Bill, but even that has not been sufficient to explore all the anxieties of hon. Members and those of many groups outside the House examining the Bill. It has been a strange feature of the debate that the worries that were expressed by a wide range of bodies outside the House have been ignored by Conservative Members, despite the fact that many of the members of those groups live in rural areas that are represented by Conservative Members. Who would have thought that only Opposition Members would be prepared to voice the concerns of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, fish farmers, the Royal Society of Nature Conservation and even, in some circumstances, the National Farmers Union. No doubt the Whips have been hard at work to silence wets who are worried about water, but I warn the Government that they cannot ignore those fears and anxieties indefinitely. Seventy-five per cent. of public opinion is against the Bill and Tory Members will be under increasing pressure on the Bill. I hope that those Conservative Members who have expressed reservations in private will soon speak out publicly against the Bill.
  We should be clear at the outset about the Bill's intentions. The Secretary of State for the Environment, who is absent from the House at the moment, gave us his reasons for the Bill yesterday. He pointed out that the Bill creates the National Rivers Authority and a statutory
  518
  framework for setting river quality objectives and for updating sewerage law. All of that could have been done —and should have been done—without any proposal for privatisation. Clearly these provisions are in the Bill to try to make the sale of the water industry more acceptable to those groups who forced the Government to back down in 1986. Although they may favour the National Rivers Authority, they are not converted to the overall objectives of the Bill. If the Government are serious about independent controls—and we shall find that out when we try to strengthen the NRA in Committee—they could have introduced the provisions in a separate Bill before now and such a Bill would have gone through the House relatively quickly, with assistance from the Opposition.
  The Secretary of State for the Environment claimed again yesterday that in establishing the NRA he was responding to the Select Committee's recommendation that gamekeepers should not be poachers as well. If the Secretary of State is serious about that, why is he allowing and encouraging the National Rivers Authority's regulatory functions to be contracted out—often back to the water plcs, the very bodies that the NRA will be regulating? If the gamekeeper should not be a poacher as well, why should the gamekeeper be forced to contract out his policing role to the poachers? That is what the Minister of State admitted will happen in an interview that was published this morning in the Surveyor.
  One of our main concerns about the Bill is its impact on the consumer. Too often, the consumer gets a raw deal —literally so in some areas, including the Secretary of State's constituency where excreta has been found in the water supply. The Secretary of State's constituency faces other problems, too. The amount of aluminium in the water supply in his constituency exceeds the EEC directive level. Hon. Members will be aware, as I am sure the Secretary of State is aware, of the link between aluminium and senile dementia, which is of concern to everybody. That may explain the Secretary of State's absence. The Minister may deal with that point later.
  The Minister for Water and Planning (Mr. Michael Howard): The hon. Lady knows perfectly well—it was explained in advance to the Opposition Front Bench—that my right hon. Friend had to attend an official function this evening. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) knows that full well. It was known long before the date for this debate was fixed.
  Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has confirmed to me that he knew that, but I think that it demonstrates the Secretary of State's priorities.
  Mr. Howard: It was agreed by the Opposition Front Bench that, in all the circumstances, my right hon. Friend's absence would be acceptable. The hon. Member for Copeland nods his assent. It is utterly disgraceful that the hon. Lady, after such an assurance, should make that point in that way.
  Mrs. Taylor: I remind the House that the Secretary of State for Wales was also absent during the opening speeches of today's debate.
  We saw another example of the Secretary of State's priorities when he introduced the Bill yesterday. The consumer was at the bottom of the Secretary of State's list of reasons for the Bill. The consumer hardly rated a

  519
  mention in his speech. I am not surprised that the consumer came at the bottom of the Secretary of State's list because, in a way, he was being honest. Privatisation is not designed to protect the interests of the consumer, so it is not surprising that little regard is paid in the Bill to their interests.
  The Bill provides for regional advisory committees to be appointed by the National Rivers Authority. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the committees will include consumers and representatives from established environmental and conservation groups.
  The Minister of State, Welsh Office, boasted at the beginning of today's debate that the Bill provides for customer services committees. He is proud of that. He is satisfied with that protection. We are not. That provision does not satisfy us, nor does it satisfy those groups outside the House who are concerned about the interests of the consumer. The National Consumer Council says that the national river committees and the customer services committees will be neither independent nor sufficiently financed. The provision for customer services committees is laughable.
  The Bill states that customer service committees "may" —not will—be established. If they are established, there is no guarantee that customers will be represented on them; certainly not ordinary domestic customers. The Bill states that such committees should be made up of those with experience of the industry. They could be packed with business men with their own vested interests. Even if those committees are established, and even if ordinary domestic consumers get a few places on them, there is no provision that they must be consulted. As the Bill stands, the new water companies will be under no obligation to consult the consumers of their industry. We shall seek to amend that.
  The other area of concern for consumers is prices. There has already been a sign of what the consumer will face because statutory water companies have been advised to increase their prices to the maximum. The Secretary of State claimed yesterday that those price increases were for investment. That is simply not true. They are intended to fatten the reserves and, more importantly, to ensure that the base line for the calculation of prices, post-privatisation, will be as high as possible.
  There are other signs of more to come, and the message is always the same—maximise the cost to the consumer to ensure maximum return to the investor. We should not be surprised at that—after all, that is what private investors expect of their companies. The British Business School, which is not exactly a Labour party organisation, has identified three groups of people who have benefited from privatisation. The first is the short-term speculator, who has bought into the industries for a quick profit derived from the undervaluing of shares. The taxpayer is cheated to ensure benefit for short-term speculators.
  The second group is the City, which has benefited from the costs of flotation. Figures from Price Waterhouse show that the City has gained more than £660 million in fees alone, with more to come. The third group—the only other group to benefit from privatisation—comprises the top managers in the industries concerned, who have gained average pay increases of 78 per cent. in the first year of privatisation. Those who know about the industry have been bought off with promises of increased salaries, and all of those costs have to be met by the consumer.
  The consumer might not mind paying more, within reason, for quality or for environmental improvements
  520
  —but there are no guarantees in the Bill that such improvements will take place. The Bill gives the Secretary of State many powers. For example, clause 98 states that the Secretary of State may establish water quality standards. Clause 104 states that he may establish water protection zones. Only yesterday he said that that power would belong to the National Rivers Authority. Will the Minister tell us whether that will be one of the first amendments to the Bill? Was the Secretary of State giving that power to the NRA? Under the Bill, it belongs to the Secretary of State. Clause 108 states that the Secretary of State may establish codes of agricultural practice.
  What do those and other provisions really mean? They mean that the Secretary of State has the power to introduce stringent controls—but they also mean that he has the power not to introduce stringent controls. If this Secretary of State has a choice between introducing stringent environmental controls and protecting the profit of private water companies, I know which he will choose.
  That is only one of the choices facing the Minister. The other choice relates to the arrangements for the sale of the industry and the price that will be fixed. The Secretary of State has not yet told us what he intends to do about the debts of the water industry. Does he intend to write off all or a proportion of those debts at massive cost to the taxpayer? It is important that we know that if we are to know who will buy the industry, and why.
  If we compare the —5·2 billion debts of the industry with the profits, it is difficult to see where there is any incentive to invest. Will people queue up to invest in the sewers of Greater Manchester? Of course not, even though some of the most expensive functions will he transferred to the NRA to be funded by the taxpayer.
  Mr. Summerson: Has the hon. Lady not heard the old saying, "where there's muck there's brass"?
  Mrs. Taylor: I think that we all know whether the brass is due to go under this provision.
  We have a water industry which is run on commercial lines with the water authorities run by Tory appointees, all of whom are committed to the commercial approach. The only commercial improvement from privatisation mentioned by the Minister is access to loans on the private market, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that the water authorities could not borrow more cheaply in the market than they do from the Government. That was before the increase in interest rates which have reached their current ridiculous height.
  Let us get to the real reason why investors will be buying into this industry. We all know why people will be looking at the water industry. It is because the total assets of the water authorities are so great that even they cannot quantify them. The private sector would simply like to get its hands on them. There are half a million acres of land, some of it in prime sites in London and other major cities and much of it in areas of outstanding natural beauty. There are examples in every region. The Secretary of State and the Minister of State say that we should not worry about what will happen to the land because we should rely on planning controls. Anyone who knows anything about what has happened to planning procedures knows that time after time under this Government the developer wins.
  More serious than that perhaps is the fact that water companies will have a large degree of control over the infrastructure necessary for future development. By laying

  521
  new water mains, increasing the size of water mains and providing new sewers, they can increase the value of land dramatically and then sell it. Or the conglomerates that might take over the water industry can allow their subsidiaries to reap the benefit of development.
  Before Conservative Members with construction interests become too excited about the backdoor means to development opportunities, they should be aware that the French are already one step ahead. They are buying into statutory water companies, not because they are happy with the regulated return allowed—they are not investing so much money for the 1 per cent. yield that they have so far received—but because they know of the opportunities for the future.
  The Secretary of State told us yesterday that the French would be able to teach the British water authorities a lesson—how helpful they would be. He almost welcomed their presence because they would be able to teach the water authorities how to diversify and provide cable television. Perhaps the chairman of Thames Water would like to diversify into cable television. However, consumers would prefer to have water companies that concentrate on providing a good water service.
  The French are buying into our water companies not just in order to have a base for profit out of water management—although they will happily accept that—but mainly to have a base for future asset stripping and to use the infrastructure power of the new companies to give work to their own construction subsidiaries. They are already operating in this way in many other parts of Europe. As the Secretary of State said, French companies have diversified. However, he did not tell us about all the ways in which they have done so. Many French water companies are already providing theme parks. Conservative Members may think that that is what is needed in the Lake District or in the Peak park or the Brecon Beacons, but we do not think so and I do not think that the general public want that either.
  There are other and perhaps more ominous overtones to the French history of diversification. Not only have French water companies diversified into construction companies and theme parks, but some have diversified into funeral undertakings. I shall not make the obvious comment about the link between that and the possible future quality of water, but it is rather alarming to hear that the funeral company subsidiary of Lyonnaise des Eaux has just decided to pay its employees on the payment-by-result method.
  We do not want French conglomerates running our water industry, nor do we want to be run by British conglomerates. Britain needs a publicly-owned water industry that is properly resourced and properly accountable. The Prime Minister is keen to emulate the Victorians, and I would have thought that the Secretary of State, if he were here, would do likewise. The Victorians concluded that the aims of private enterprise and the need for a clean and plentiful water supply were incompatible. In 1894 Joseph Chamberlain said:
  "It is difficult and indeed almost impossible to reconcile the rights and interests of the public to the claims of an individual company seeking as its natural and legitimate object the largest private gain."
  Yesterday the Government made it clear that the real object of the Bill was not to protect the environment but
  522
  to create viable and profitable companies. We seem to have learnt nothing in the 94 years since Joseph Chamberlain made his comment because we are contemplating whether we should again subject the country's water needs to market and competition forces. All those years ago even the Conservatives realised that the water industry was not safe in private hands. Who are the extremists now? I ask the House to vote against Second Reading.
  9.33 pm
  The Minister for Water and Planning (Mr. Michael Howard): The debate has lasted for almost 10 hours and detailed points have been raised to which I shall shortly reply. The most conspicuous feature of the long debate is the utter intellectual bankruptcy of the Opposition. Hour after hour Conservative Members have waited for some coherent explanation of the Opposition's attitude. We have waited patiently, we have waited attentively and we have waited in vain.
  The Labour party is the "Say no" party. It says no to change, to new ideas and to any constructive proposals designed to improve the condition of our people. The Labour party is the most sterile, destructive and negative Opposition that we have seen for generations. At no time have those characteristics been more apparent than in the past 10 hours of debate.
  Yesterday, we had from the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) the routine rant that we have come to expect from him. He railed about the evils of the private sector. But until my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intervened, he said nothing about the private sector water companies which presently supply one quarter of our drinking water, as we were reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) in his elegant speech.
  It is, of course, hardly surprising that the hon. Member for Copeland should be rather wary about the private water companies. If the private sector is the menace to standards in the water industry that the hon. Gentleman suggested, why were they not taken into public ownership under any of the Labour Governments who have existed since the war?
  The hon. Gentleman has no answer to that. He prefers to forget that the private companies exist. He does not even know what they do. He suggested yesterday that they were not private enterprises, and that they simply act as agents for the regional water authorities.
  That is an astonishing statement for the hon. Gentleman to have made. It will not, of course, come as a surprise to my right hon. and hon. Friends, who know from long experience not to expect Opposition spokesmen to have any acquaintance with the facts or with the real world. But it came as a considerable surprise to the companies themselves which have a long and distinguished history of supplying drinking water in the private sector quite independently of the regional water authorities.
  Then the hon. Gentleman railed about price increases.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: Before the Minister leaves the subject of private water companies, if he will not accept the word of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), will he accept the words of Jack Jeffrey, who was chair of the Water Companies Association, who remarked:

  523
  "We are subject to strict financial controls, especially on dividends, which make us very different from the water plcs which are being proposed by the Government."?
  Mr. Howard: I do not know what point the hon. Lady is addressing, but it is not the point made by the hon. Member for Copeland. The hon. Gentleman said that they were not private enterprise companies, and he was wrong. He said that they acted only as agents of the regional water authorities, and he was wrong about that, too.
  The hon. Gentleman railed about price increases. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dealt with that point in his speech yesterday. But what of the increase in the price of water of 42 per cent. in 1975–76? Did the hon. Gentleman not notice it at the time? Had he forgotten it?
  Last, but very far from least, the hon. Gentleman had the temerity to criticise the condition of our rivers and beaches. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the main cause of our present problems lies in the record of the Labour Government—[Interruption.] The convolutions in which the hon. Gentleman engaged in a vain attempt to defend the indefensible were astonishing. The first thing the hon. Gentleman did yesterday, when he sought to explain the Labour Government's record, was to succumb to a bout of amnesia about the last year of office of the Labour Government. He tried to pretend that the last year of the Labour Government was 1977–78. It is in Hansard for all to see. I think we can all sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's desire to expunge from the record all trace of the year 1978–79 or, failing that, to hope that we will forget that Labour was in office during that disastrous year. But the hon. Gentlman will have to be just a little more sophisticated if he is to have much success in that endeavour.
  The hon. Gentleman was then faced with the decision of which deflator to use to bend the figures to his case. Should he use the GDP deflator or the public works deflator? He decided to use them both—one for one set of figures and the other for an entirely different set of figures. But that did not work either. The length to which the hon. Gentleman went to try to find some figures that he thought he could use illustrates better than anything the hollow weakness of the case that he was trying to defend.
  Dr. John Cunningham: I should be flattered that, in his speech, the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred only to my own speech. I take that as a compliment. As he and the Secretary of State find it difficult to face the truth, I say to him again that they are not my figures; they are the figures published in "Water Facts", and the statistics were calculated by the House of Commons Library. The hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to suggest that somehow Opposition Members have manipulated the figures. That is a manifest dishonesty.
  Mr. Howard: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell the House whether he depends on the House Library to tell him what was the final year of the last Labour Government. That was just one of the things that he got wrong.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Howard: No, I shall not give way—[Interruption.] I shall refer directly to the hon. Lady. We have just heard the hon. Lady's maiden Front-Bench speech on this
  524
  subject. I welcome her to her new responsibilities. She has certainly made an enthusiastic start, but, unfortunately—
  Mrs. Taylor rose—
  Mr. Howard: I shall give way to the hon. Lady in a moment.
  Unfortunately, in her desire to make an enthusiastic start, the hon. Lady has let her enthusiasm run away with her. On Monday, for example, the hon. Lady issued a press release. It was a mixture of mistakes, muddle and misrepresentation.
  I shall confine myself to one example. The hon. Lady alleged that, after privatisation, the water industry would not be able to spend money on protecting the environment because, for the first time, it would have to pay local authority rates. I shall quote the exact words that she used.
  "It is also likely"—
  the hon. Lady said—
  "that while the industry in public hands did not have to pay local authority rates, the private industry will."
  There is just one difficulty about that. The industry in public hands has been paying local authority rates. There will be no change after privatisation. The hon. Lady got that simple, elementary fact utterly and completely wrong.
  Mrs. Taylor rose—
  Mr. Howard: I shall give way to the hon. Lady if she wishes, but I hope that, on this occasion, she will not blame the House Library for that mistake.
  Mrs. Taylor: They do not pay rates, but they will after privatisation.
  Perhaps I may refer to the figures for investment in the last year of the Labour Government. The hon. and learned Gentleman was challenging our figures. I shall tell him about investment in water authorities in the last year of the Labour Government, 1978–79. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman prefer the figures for 1977–78? I shall give both. In 1977–78, investment in water authorities was £1,066 million. In 1978–79, it was £1,013 million. Investment did not reach either of those figures under a Conservative Government until 1987–88.
  Mr. Howard: We know what the figures show because we heard the speech yesterday—I shall return to it in due course—by the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment. That Committee reported, in terms which were supported and signed by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), that, under the Labour Government, investment by the industry fell by one third in real terms and in sewerage by a half. Those are the facts of the matter.
  Following the press release by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) on Monday, which contained such an elementary mistake, I should like to make an offer to the hon. Lady. I want the debates in which she and I will be engaged in the next few months to be conducted on a sensible basis. I want to help the hon. Lady to get her facts right. If she sends a copy of her press releases to the Department of the Environment in advance, I shall make sure that the facts are properly checked and that she does not in future make the kind of mistake that she made on Monday.
  The Bill represents a giant step forward towards a better water environment. It is about the quality of the water that we drink, the purity of our rivers and the

  525
  cleanliness of our beaches. It is the key to those higher environmental standards of which others speak, but which we deliver.
  Of course, the measures in the Bill will secure for our people all the advantages that any privatisation brings—the advantages that have led so many other countries, governed by parties of many different political persuasions, to emulate our example. It will contribute to the spread of share ownership, it will give employees a real stake in their companies, and it will remove from this important segment of our economy the public sector shroud which conceals and disguises true accountability. It will open up for the industry all the opportunities and incentives for increased efficiency that only the private sector can provide, and it will free the industry from the constraints of competition for limited public sector resources with schools, hospitals, defence and all the other demands which must continue to be met by the taxpayer.
  It is that access to private sector capital which will, above all, enable higher environmental standards to be achieved. The hon. Member for Bootle suggested yesterday that we could somehow abolish all spending restraint while retaining the industry in the public sector. It would be interesting to know whether he had consulted his party's economic spokesmen before making that statement.
  Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Minister explain how funds for river navigation, flood defences, sea defences and all the other major environmental concerns, which now rest with the water industry, but which will be given to the National Rivers Authority, will be released from the public sector borrowing requirement if they stay in the public sector? How will they be funded?
  Mr. Howard: They will be funded from the public sector. The reason for that is very simple—so simple that it has escaped the hon. Gentleman. The amounts to fund those activities are very much smaller than the amounts needed to finance the investment of the authorities themselves. If the step suggested by the hon. Gentleman yesterday was such an obvious and easy step to take, why was it not taken between 1974 and 1979 by the Labour Government, who presided over a cut in investment of one third overall and one half in sewerage services?
  It is, of course, true that the industry is a natural monopoly. We recognise that, but that does not mean that there will be no scope for competition. There will be competition between the various privatised concerns in the capital markets, there will be competition over supply to "inset areas" and there will be competition in the provision of various commercial interests.
  There will be the yardstick of competition between the companies themselves which will enable the Director General of Water Services, in setting the price at which the companies will be permitted to sell their water, to ensure that consumers benefit from improved efficiency. We are determined to ensure that the customer gets these benefits not only in the price that he pays for water but in the quality of service that he receives. Customers will be protected by enforcing the conditions of appointment of the companies, and there will be new customer service committees with a balanced membership representing consumer interests.
  526
  The Bill also provides for regulations to be made for a guaranteed standards scheme. These guarantees will cover such matters as resumption of water supplies after a supply failure or planned disconnection, prompt response to billing inquiries or reasonable written complaints and keeping appointments at the agreed time.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) referred to the need for automatic payments to be made to domestic customers if guaranteed standards are not met. We agree, and I am happy to be able to announce that there will be such a scheme providing compensation for a breach of guaranteed standards. We envisage a payment of around £5 for each and every day, or for each and every occasion, as appropriate, on which a breach occurs. This would be a no-nonsense, no-quibble scheme to provide a spur to management for good commercial manners and quick recompense to customers for the inconvenience that they have suffered. It will be a new remedy for the customer. It will be in addition to existing legal rights. It will be but one of the many advantages that will accrue to the customer as a result of privatisation.
  If there has been a focus for the contributions to this debate, it has related to the environmental aspect of our proposals. That is as it should be, because concern for the protection and enhancement of our water environment lies at the heart of the Bill. It was my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who last year saw the need to separate the regulatory functions of the water authorities from their water supply functions. Even Labour Members have been grudgingly obliged to concede the merits of the National Rivers Authority. The advisory committee, under the distinguished chairmanship of my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Crickhowell, has made an excellent start in identifying its responsibilities and putting in place the organisational framework within which these responsibilities will be discharged.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) and for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) expressed concern about the resources available for the NRA. They were right to say that, unless it gets the resources it needs, it will not succeed. We accept that. We are determined to ensure that it gets these resources and that it will succeed. That is the basis on which it is being established.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale), who has taken such a close interest on behalf of his constituents in recent events in his constituency, asked for a specific assurance that the Department will continue to monitor closely what is happening in his constituency. I am happy to give him that assurance. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) asked for a reassurance that the full rigours of the planning system would be maintained after privatisation, and I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) suggested that the regional fisheries advisory committees of the NRA should have the same executive responsibilities as the regional flood defence committees as anglers would contribute a great deal to the funds of the NRA. The answer to my right hon. Friend's worry is that matters will continue as they have. The regional flood defence committee will continue to exercise the executive functions that are now exercised by the land drainage committees, and the regional fisheries advisory committees will continue as advisory committees to the new authority.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has explained how we see this measure as the key to improved

  527
  environmental standards, but we should not allow the false picture of the present state of our water environment so sedulously painted by Labour Members to gain acceptance. They lost no opportunity to denigrate the state of our environment, but their charges, in this as in so many other cases, are very wide of the mark. They say that we have the dirtiest rivers in Europe. They are wrong. We have the highest standards of river quality in the European Community, with the exception of the Irish Republic and possibly Holland. They say that we have the dirtiest beaches in Europe, but they are wrong. We are making steady progress in cleaning our beaches. We are the only member of the European Community that has drawn up a clear and defined table and programme for securing compliance with the European bathing water directive.
  Mr. Paul Boateng: The hon. and learned Gentleman is going at a fine old lick, but could we have some intellectual content?
  Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman is not interested in the state of our rivers or beaches, he is typical of the general attitude of the Opposition. I am dealing with the facts.
  Dr. Cunningham: As the Minister of State unusually is dealing with facts, perhaps he can deal with this one. If what he says about our position in Europe is true, why have we been singled out by the European Commission for more prosecutions in respect of drinking water quality and bathing water quality than all the other member states put together?
  Mr. Howard: That is not right either. That is another of the hon. Gentleman's errors. That is as wide of the mark as any of the other charges that the hon. Gentleman delights in peddling. The fact is that we are making substantial progress in improving our water environment and have reached far higher standards than most of the other countries in Europe.
  I shall give the hon. Member for Copeland some more facts. We have more of our households connected to a main sewerage system than has any other country in Europe. We have more of our sewage treated before disposal than has any other country in Europe. We have no need whatever to be ashamed of our record.
  However, I want to come to the record of the Opposition. It was identified in the clearest possible terms in the report of the Select Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), and supported and signed by the hon. Member for Bootle, who was a member of the Committee. The Committee said:
  "There are a number of reasons why water authority effluents fall short of the present consent standards. The most immediate reason is because from the mid-1970s until the early 1980s there was a steady drop in investment by the water authorities in sewerage and sewage disposal."
  The undisputed facts are that, when the Opposition were in power, investment by the water authorities fell by one third and investment in sewerage and sewage disposal fell by one half. Those are the facts. The Opposition like to convey the impression that those events took place in a far-off distant period of which they know nothing, but many of them were here. The hon. Member for Dewsbury was a Member of the House, albeit for a different constituency. Perhaps she would like to remind the House of the occasions when she rose during those years to
  528
  protest against those cuts and against the damage to the environment that they caused. The hon. Member for Copeland was here, too.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor rose—
  Mr. Howard: Perhaps the hon. Lady will answer the question that I posed to her.
  Mrs. Taylor: Before the Minister gets carried away, perhaps he would reflect on what he was not happy to discuss earlier: the actual levels of investment under a Labour Government compared with the actual levels of investment under a Conservative Government. The average level of investment under the last Labour Government between 1974 and 1979 was £1,254 million per year. The average investment under the Conservative Government has been £922 million per year. In no year since 1978–79 has investment under the Conservative Government reached the level of investment under the Labour Government. For the Minister to suggest that the problems faced by this industry today are the responsibility of the Labour Government is to ignore the fact that this Government have been in office for 10 of the last 14 years and that they have been—[Interruption.]
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. David Waddington)rose in his place and claimed to move. That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 241.

  Divison No. 11]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Conway, Derek

  Arbuthnot, James

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Ashby, David

  Cormack, Patrick

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Couchman, James

  Baldry, Tony

  Cran, James

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bellingham, Henry

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

  Bottomley, Peter

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Day, Stephen

  Bowis, John

  Devlin, Tim

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Dicks, Terry

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bright, Graham

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Dover, Den

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

  Dunn, Bob

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Durant, Tony

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Dykes, Hugh

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Burns, Simon

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Burt, Alistair

  Evennett, David

  Butcher, John

  Fallon, Michael

  Butler, Chris

  Favell, Tony

  Butterfill, John

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Carrington, Matthew

  Forman, Nigel

  Carttiss, Michael

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Cash, William

  Forth, Eric

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Chapman, Sydney

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Chope, Christopher

  Franks, Cecil

  Churchill, Mr

  Freeman, Roger

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

  French, Douglas

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Fry, Peter

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Gale, Roger

  529

  Gardiner, George

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Gill, Christopher

  McCrindle, Robert

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Maclean, David

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Gorst, John

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Gow, Ian

  Madel, David

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mans, Keith

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Maples, John

  Gregory, Conal

  Marland, Paul

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Marlow, Tony

  Grist, Ian

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Ground, Patrick

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Grylls, Michael

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mates, Michael

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Hannam, John

  Mellor, David

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

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Mills, Iain

  Harris, David

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Hayward, Robert

  Moate, Roger

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Heddle, John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hill, James

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hind, Kenneth

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Holt, Richard

  Neubert, Michael

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Howard, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Page, Richard

  Hunter, Andrew

  Paice, James

  Irvine, Michael

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Irving, Charles

  Patnick, Irvine

  Jack, Michael

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Jackson, Robert

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Janman, Tim

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Jessel, Toby

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Portillo, Michael

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Price, Sir David

  Key, Robert

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Redwood, John

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Renton, Tim

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Knapman, Roger

  Riddick, Graham

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Knowles, Michael

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Knox, David

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Lang, Ian

  Rost, Peter

  Latham, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Ryder, Richard

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Sainsbury, Hon Tom

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lightbown, David

  Scott, Nicholas

  Lilley, Peter

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lord, Michael

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  530

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Tredinnick, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Trippier, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Trotter, Neville

  Sims, Roger

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Viggers, Peter

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Speller, Tony

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Walden, George

  Squire, Robin

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Waller, Gary

  Steen, Anthony

  Ward, John

  Stern, Michael

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Watts, John

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Wells, Bowen

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Wheeler, John

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Whitney, Ray

  Sumberg, David

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Summerson, Hugo

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wilshire, David

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Wolfson, Mark

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wood, Timothy

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Woodcock, Mike

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Yeo, Tim

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Thorne, Neil

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Thurnham, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mr. Alan Howarth and

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

  Tracey, Richard

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Clay, Bob

  Allen, Graham

  Clelland, David

  Alton, David

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Anderson, Donald

  Cohen, Harry

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Coleman, Donald

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Corbett, Robin

  Ashton, Joe

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cousins, Jim

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Cox, Tom

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Crowther, Stan

  Barron, Kevin

  Cryer, Bob

  Battle, John

  Cummings, John

  Beckett, Margaret

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Beith, A. J.

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Bell, Stuart

  Dalyell, Tam

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Darling, Alistair

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

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bidwell, Sydney

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

  Blair, Tony

  Dewar, Donald

  Blunkett, David

  Dixon, Don

  Boateng, Paul

  Dobson, Frank

  Boyes, Roland

  Doran, Frank

  Bradley, Keith

  Douglas, Dick

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Eastham, Ken

  Buchan, Norman

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Buckley, George J.

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Caborn, Richard

  Fatchett, Derek

  Callaghan, Jim

  Fearn, Ronald

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

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

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Fisher, Mark

  Canavan, Dennis

  Flannery, Martin

  Cartwright, John

  Flynn, Paul

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  531

  Foster, Derek

  Michael, Alun

  Foulkes, George

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Fraser, John

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Galloway, George

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Morley, Elliott

  George, Bruce

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mullin, Chris

  Gordon, Mildred

  Murphy, Paul

  Graham, Thomas

  Nellist, Dave

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  O'Brien, William

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Grocott, Bruce

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hardy, Peter

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Parry, Robert

  Henderson, Doug

  Patchett, Terry

  Hinchliffe, David

  Pendry, Tom

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Holland, Stuart

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Home Robertson, John

  Prescott, John

  Hood, Jimmy

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Radice, Giles

  Howells, Geraint

  Randall, Stuart

  Hoyle, Doug

  Redmond, Martin

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Reid, Dr John

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Richardson, Jo

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Robertson, George

  Illsley, Eric

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Ingram, Adam

  Rogers, Allan

  Janner, Greville

  Rooker, Jeff

  John, Brynmor

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kaufman Rt Hon Gerald

  Salmond, Alex

  Kennedy, Charles

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Sheerman, Barry

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lamond, James

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Short, Clare

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lewis, Terry

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Livingstone, Ken

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

  Livsey, Richard

  Snape, Peter

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Soley, Clive

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Spearing, Nigel

  Loyden, Eddie

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McAllion, John

  Stott, Roger

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Strang, Gavin

  McCartney, Ian

  Straw, Jack

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McFall, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  McKelvey, William

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  McLeish, Henry

  Turner, Dennis

  Maclennan, Robert

  Vaz, Keith

  McNamara, Kevin

  Wall, Pat

  McTaggart, Bob

  Wallace, Jemes

  McWilliam, John

  Walley, Joan

  Madden, Max

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Marek, Dr John

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Martlew, Eric

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Maxton, John

  Wilson, Brian

  Meacher, Michael

  Winnick, David

  Meale, Alan

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  532

  Worthington, Tony

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wray, Jimmy

  Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Martin Jones.

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Ways and Means Motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

  Water Bill [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Water Bill ('the Act'), it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of the following, namely—

  (a) grants by the Secretary of State to the National Rivers Authority;

  (b) the remuneration of, and any travelling or other allowances payable under the Act to, the Director General of Water Services and any staff of the Director, any other sums payable under the Act to or in respect of a person who holds or has held office as the Director and any expenses duly incurred by the Director or by any of his staff in consequence of the provisions of the Act;

  (c) the remuneration of the chairman of a customer service committee, any travelling or other allowances payable under the Act to such a chairman, to other members of a customer service committee or to members of a sub-committee of such a committee, any other sums payable under the Act to or in respect of a person who holds or has held office as such a chairman or member and the expenses incurred by a customer service committee;

  (d) grants and loans by the Secretary of State to a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker in relation to which a special administration order has been made;

  (e) sums required by the Secretary of State for making any payment in respect of an indemnity given under the Act to a person appointed to achieve the purposes of a special administration order made in relation to a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker;

  (f) expenses incurred by the Treasury or the Secretary of State in acquiring securities of a holding company of a water authority's successor company or rights to subscribe for any such securities;

  (g) compensation payable by the Secretary of State under the Act in respect of the exercise of functions in relation to trade effluent or in respect of loss or damage caused in connection with a power of entry;

  (h) grants in respect of compliance with directions given under the Act in the interests of national security;

  (i) sums required by the Secretary of State for making payments under the Act into any fund maintained for the purposes of any regulations under section 7 of the Superannuation Act 1972;

  (j) sums required by a Minister of the Crown for fulfilling guarantees given under the Act;

  (k) administrative expenses or charges incurred by any Minister of the Crown or Government department in consequence of the provisions of the Act;

  (l) increases attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act;

  (2) the payment out of the National Loans Fund of any sums required by a Minister of the Crown by virtue of the Act for making loans, while it is wholly owned by the Crown, to a successor company of a water authority or to a holding company of such a company;

  533

  (3) the reduction of the assets of the National Loans Fund by amounts corresponding to such liabilities of a water authority's successor company, or of a holding company of such a company, in respect of any loans as the Secretary of State may by order extinguish.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

  10.14 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: After the debacle of the Government withdrawing their previous privatisation proposals in 1986, I had hoped that such proposals would never come back to the House in any form. I regret very much that they have.
  When we consider what the Government now say to justify their position—that this is a "green" Bill, that the NRA is the linchpin to what they are doing—it draws a wry smile from us, because those points were not made originally. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I can hardly hear the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), despite his being very close to me, because of Tory loungers and scroungers who are making such a noise.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Will those hon. Members beyond the Bar either come into the House or go out into the Lobby?
  Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. A Tory Member just shouted across the Chamber, "We do not want to hear you either." It appears that there could be a concerted attempt to drown out hon. Members, which is completely against the traditions of the House.
  Mr. Speaker: I did not hear such a comment. Let us get on with the debate.
  Mr. Taylor: I thank the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) for leaping to my defence. I have never been accused of having a quiet voice, so there will be a tussle if anyone tries to drown me out.
  Yesterday, the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) wondered how the privatisation of water could lead to competition. Many privatisations have been justified on the ground that privatisation would bring with it the benefits of competition. In privatisation after privatisation we have been told that competition is the crucial element, but the hon. Gentleman said that there would not be competition in any normal sense of the word in this case. Indeed, Ministers have accepted that there will not be competition. That is hardly a surprise. We are dealing with a natural monopoly. No one could possibly think that there could be any competition in any real sense.
  Nevertheless, the Government have pressed ahead with the privatisation of water. In doing so, they reveal that competition is never one of the reasons for privatisation. In fact, they have pressed ahead with privatisation on occasion after occasion because privatisation is central to the Government's dogma. It is a matter of ideology. The Government are not looking at the merits of each case. Whatever the industry, whatever the circumstances, whatever the electorate think, the Government want to privatise whatever may be in state hands—or rather, in the community's hands.
  In three Thatcher Administrations, none of which has had the support of the majority of the electorate, 29 partly or wholly owned public companies have gone under the hammer. Ironically, as each Conservative Administration has gained less support at the general election polls,
  534
  privatisation issues have become not only more audacious but have centred on areas that are more and more deeply unpopular.
  We on these Benches are willing to say that in some cases a transfer to the private sector has been beneficial; for example, in Rolls-Royce and Jaguar. Our objection is not against privatisation per se, as we hear from the Labour Benches. Indeed, when the Front-Bench spokesman replied to the Second Reading debate they made clear the rather stale arguments over privatisation versus nationalisation.
  What we have said is that the individual merits of each particular case have been ignored, and the particular means of going about it have been ignored, simply to gain the maximum financial return for the Treasury and the maximum ideological advantage of privatisation. The Government have not considered what is best for each individual sector that has been privatised. Instead, there has been a blinkered ideological approach, blind to any wider considerations.
  Finally, we have the privatisation of water. People are now against the proposal by a margin of 5:1, yet the Government propose the privatisation of water. Boiled down, it is the ultimate triumph of dogma over democracy.
  Mr. Rob Hayward: Which of the 29 companies and organisations to which the hon. Gentleman referred does he propose to return to state ownership?
  Mr. Taylor: None of them. If the hon. Gentleman will listen, he will know that the essential problem is not privatisation or nationalisation, but whether either is the best thing for the industry in question.
  I do not believe that privatisation is best for the water industry. Also, one must also consider whether, in privatising, one is giving adequate power to consumers and meeting environmental concerns. In any privatisation, the first consideration should be the ordinary men and women of this country, whereas the Government's primary consideration has been maximising the return to the Treasury.
  Mr. Hayward: If the hon. Gentleman does not think that privatisation is best for water, one presumes that he proposes its renationalisation. In which other cases does he consider that privatisation has not been best for the public and which does he propose renationalising?
  Mr. Taylor: I shall not give way again to the hon. Gentleman, because he is not listening. If he is, he is incapable of understanding my argument. I shall spell it out again very simply for him.
  One ought not to privatise just because one believes that it is the right thing to do—as is the Government's practice, to privatise purely on ideological grounds. Instead, one should do one's best to maintain the industry and ensure that its customers are given the best possible service, while protecting the environment and meeting other areas of concern. On every occasion such considerations have come second best to the Treasury's desire to make a bigger financial return.
  I wish to move on, because the result of the Government's action in respect of water can be described in a single word.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. When the hon. Gentleman moves on, will he relate his remarks to the money resolution that is before the House?
  Mr. Taylor: Of course I will, Mr. Speaker.
  I move on to the cost falling on the consumer as a result of the Bill—a cost that is allowed for in part in the money resolution, in the provision that it makes to spend money as part of privatisation. Even more expense will fall on individual consumers when the Bill is passed. We must ask ourselves whether it should be allowed to pass.
  Looking back to 1986 when the Government last proposed privatisation, there was another difference—I have already mentioned the NRA—between their comments then and their comments now. Now we are hearing about the NRA and that this is a "green" Bill, but in 1986 we were being told that privatisation would lead to lower water prices. We do not hear that argument any more. On the contrary, the Government no longer claim that privatisation will keep bills down, but that it will increase them. All kinds of reasons are given for that, but the Government have ditched the idea of lower water charges. The only people who believe that passing this money resolution or any other relating to the Bill will benefit the consumer are the Government and their supporters. Nobody else, in the House or anywhere else, believes that.
  The House regularly allows money resolutions to go through on the nod, but I have no intention of allowing that to happen on this occasion. I say to the House that this is an opportunity to pause and reconsider whether this money resolution should be passed and whether the Bill should take effect. I say to right hon. and hon. Members who suggested earlier that there is public support for this measure that they are wrong, and that the House would be wrong to pass it. There is no general support for it in this Chamber or elsewhere. I remind Conservative Members that the Government do not have the money, because the resolution has not yet been passed.
  I represent an area where people are on low incomes, where some villages do not yet have their own sewerage systems, and where many beaches are polluted. It is they who will have to foot the bill for the improvements that are required. One example is the problem of sewage outfall on beaches. There are currently three projects in hand, all of which require substantial amounts of money. There is one project in Falmouth and Truro, one in Parr and St. Austell and one in Penzance and St. Ives. The Penzance and St. Ives project alone required a massive investment of £50 million, yet discharges will still go out to sea.
  Conservative Members want the money resolution to go through on the nod, but they are not so interested in spending money where it needs to be spent as they are in trying to make the Bill fit their own ideology.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that we are debating a money resolution, not various aspects of the Water Bill which, had he caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, he might have raised on Second Reading?
  Mr. Speaker: I have already drawn the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that he must relate his remarks to the money resolution, which is widely drawn.
  Mr. Taylor: That is right. The money resolution allows the Government to spend money on the provisions of the
  536
  Bill. The Bill is so appalling that we should not allow it to go through, as there are many other ways in which the money could be better spent.
  In the past, my own area has relied on the European regional development fund to pay for projects. There is great concern in my area—and I hope that the Minister will be able to answer my question now or on another occasion—that, if we allow the Bill and the associated money resolution to go through, a private company such as one of the new water companies will not receive funding from Europe. The work is essential to bring our beaches up to the European standard, and I hope that the Minister can assure the people of Cornwall that they will not be expected to meet all the costs of cleaning up the beaches, which are used by citizens of the United Kingdom and Europe, purely because the Government, by their ideological approach, are cutting off the potential to obtain money in other ways.
  Conservative Members have said that all this has nothing to do with the money resolution. They are really saying that they want the money resolution to go through on the nod. They do not mind money being spent as a result of the Bill, rather than on matters that are important to people, particularly in my part of the country.
  What will happen to some individuals? It is easy for the House to vote sums of money and to spend money that does not come out of the pockets of hon. Members to any large extent. The money that hon. Members receive comes mainly out of public funds, so, although hon. Members can easily pass this resolution on the nod, it is less easy for it to be accepted by some individuals who, after privatisation, may find that their water supplies are disconnected because they are unable to pay their water bills after the price increases that the Bill will bring about.
  I challenge the Minister to guarantee that the 9,000 disconnections last year will not be increased after privatisation. Will he guarantee to come to the House each year and tell us that there has been no increase in the number of disconnections following privatisation? We have seen the record of previous privatisations, particularly British Gas. I cannot let the money resolution go through without seeking such guarantees.
  I remind Conservative Members that none of them is on low incomes, so they are unlikely to find it difficult to pay their bills. None of them is ever likely to be faced with the problem of having the water supply to their house and family cut off. None of them is likely to face the difficulty of not having water to wash in and to clean with.
  Mr. Frank Haynes: Or of not having water for their swimming pools.
  Mr. Taylor: None of them is likely to suffer, but people up and down the country will suffer as a consequence of price increases after privatisation. That will happen if we allow to go through on the nod the money resolution to a Bill under which there is no real accountability. Real accountability cannot be achieved by privatisation and by putting the industry into the hands of public companies. It can be achieved only by placing directly elected representatives in charge of a public water supply that was designed and built at the expense of local ratepayers.
  We shall oppose the money resolution. It allows legislation that is daylight robbery to be passed Our grandfathers and fathers invested, through their local authorities, in the water industry. Privatisation will not

  537
  benefit local communities. It will benefit the Treasury, higher rate taxpayers and private shareholders. Local communities cannot afford, as Conservative Members can, to move around the country, pay their way and even fill their baths with Perrier water. Our constituents will be disconnected because they cannot afford to pay their bills. They will suffer from the pollution that is caused because public investment is no longer available. They will have to meet the real costs of the Bill.
  10.30 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I am taking yet another opportunity to speak on a money resolution, but this is a particularly important one. Earlier today I was approached by a Conservative Whip who suggested that, by means of some device, the money resolution would be debated at 4 am. I assured him that if the Government used such a device I should be here to speak about it. I am not sure whether he was being jocular but, as with all Tory Whips, his manner was threatening. He disappeared, chastened, after my brief conversation with him.
  The money resolution is what was formerly called Supply. A ways and means resolution is to follow the money resolution, when we shall be able to discuss the ways and means by which revenue is to be provided to fulfil the supply need. The money resolution is subsumed in greater detail on pages xii and xiii of the explanatory and financial memorandum.
  The residual functions of the National Rivers Authority will, it is estimated, cost £290 million. Those functions are wide and important. Is the Minister able to give details of the calculations? There is to be Exchequer grant aid amounting to £71 million for the first full year of the National River Authority's operations. I presume that that will be in addition to the £290 million.
  There are reservations about the National Rivers Authority. They relate to its funding, naturally enough. the functions of the NRA are said to be as follows:
  "So far as the new NRA is concerned, we see this as an unnecessary addition to the hierarchy and contrary to the concept of integrated river basin management, which we believe is the best method of managing the whole water cycle. To divide the responsibilities would seem to be a retrograde step when so much effort was put into achieving a coherent policy, based on watershed borders, only 13 years ago.
  We see no justification for privatisation, which is certain to result in increased charges for consumers, nor are we convinced of the need for dividing responsibilities in the water cycles, inherent in the setting up of a National Rivers Authority."
  The Minister may ask me which green or Left-wing organisation produced that statement. I am sure that he is anxious to know that it was made by the Confederation of British Wool Textiles Ltd., which probably numbers among its ranks a large number of employers. It circulated a letter in October that expressed that view.
  Is the Minister able to provide information about the total expenditure and will he tell the House whether he is satisfied that that expenditure will meet the NRA's requirements, thereby reassuring the confederation?
  On page xiii the Bill states:
  "Net proceeds of sales of securities in the nominated holding company…and any dividend or interest payment on such securities…will be paid into the Consolidated Fund. Whilst a successor company and its nominated holding company are wholly owned by the Crown, clause 76"
  538
  —it says clause 76, but I assume that it should be clause 77—
  "allows the Treasury to issue sums out of the National Loans Fund to the Secretary of State to enable him to make loans to those companies."
  Clauses 77 and 78 govern the issue of those loans. In essence, repayments will be made as
  "the Secretary of State may from time to time direct."
  We should know a little more about what is in the Secretary of State's mind regarding issuing directions for repayment. For example, will he charge interest at current interest rates, which will be a very steep figure? Will he obtain repayment at a nominal rate? What figure does he have in mind?
  The national loans fund debt owed by the water companies will be extinguished by the issue of debentures. Most debentures are secured by either a fixed or an appropriate floating charge. As it involves a considerable sum—almost £4 billion—will those debentures be permanently in the ownership of the Treasury or will they be discharged over a period—and, if so, over what timescale?
  The economic regulation and consumer protection arrangements will involve increased expenditure. It is a relatively small amount compared with the large sums of money that we have been discussing. It is one of the cornerstones of the Government's protection measures, yet less than £4 million a year is to be available to finance a director and staff who will undertake the range of activities set out in the Bill.
  The Confederation of British Wool Textiles Ltd. questions whether the limitation of price increases by that mechanism is adequate. Does the Minister think that £3·7 million is adequate to finance such an important sector?
  The confederation said:
  "You should know at once that we find the Government's justification for this step"—
  that is, privatisation—
  "quite unconvincing. As a matter of principle, we do not believe that any public utility, providing services so fundamental and where consumers have no choice in using its services should be allowed to pass into private hands. Competition and the discipline of the market place are, we believe, the cornerstone of Government philosophy on privatisation but we have great difficulty in working out how our members can get their water from Severn and Trent or dispose of their effluent to North West Water Authorities—so where is the competition? We are not persuaded that the Government's proposals to ensure the reduction of controllable costs and the limitation of price increases to the consumer are adequate."
  I question whether £3·7 million is adequate to finance that sort of operation.
  There is a curious circumstance in clause 24, which is the contingency section. If any sewerage and water undertaking gets into financial difficulties it can prevent winding-up because there is a guarantee. The guarantee is covered in clause 24. Subsection (2) states:
  "The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, guarantee, in such manner and on such conditions as he may think fit, the repayment of the principal of, the payment of interest on and the discharge of any other financial obligation in connection with any sum which is borrowed from any person by a company in relation to which a special administration order is in force at the time when the guarantee is given."
  The special administration order must be given, but that gives wide powers to the Secretary of State. It is true that he has to have the consent of the Treasury, but that means talking to a chum in the Cabinet. He will say,

  539
  "Look here, Nige"—this is a representation of the Cabinet and, naturally, I would call the Chancellor of the Exchequer an hon. Member in other circumstances—"there are a couple of water undertakings that we privatised in rather great difficulties. It has come as a shock to us all, but we have miscalculated. I am giving a special administration order. There are one or two of our chums involved too, Nige. They were decent contributors, you know, in 1987." What are the terms and conditions that will be laid down when we give them the money and ask them for repayment? The House should have some idea, lest anybody should imagine that that sort of conversation should pass between Cabinet Ministers.
  The terms and conditions that the Secretary of State thinks fit should not be subject to general rules imposed by the Treasury. We must ensure that the dealing is absolutely fair and square and at arm's length. This is a fall-back position and I am surprised that the Government think that it is needed, but it appears from the legislation that it is.
  The next matter of concern is national security. Clause 158 states:
  "The Secretary of State may, after consultation with a body to which this section applies, give to that body such directions of a general character as appear to the Secretary of State to be requisite or expedient in the interests of national security or for the purpose of mitigating the effects of any civil emergency which may occur."
  The financial relevance is that the Secretary of State can give grants subject to Treasury consent to meet his directions in the interests of national security. That may appear to be above board and straightforward, but clause 158(4) states:
  "The Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy of every direction given under this section unless he is of the opinion that disclosure of the direction is against the interests of national security or the commercial interests of any person."
  The Secretary of State can give a direction of a general character because he thinks that a civil emergency may occur and then he may say, "It's against commercial interests to reveal the sort of direction that I am giving and the payments which arise from that direction." The House should know a little more about the circumstances in which that would arise, particularly those circumstances in which the whole matter could be kept effectively secret. The Secretary of State will be giving money as a result of these directions. Is it possible that secret directions could be given which would result in payments which would never be revealed to this House? It is important that when we give powers, we ensure that there is accountability.
  If the Minister says, "I have these powers and commercial interests are involved", will a civil servant stamp the top of the page, "Commercial. In confidence"? Only rarely do Ministers determine the status of documents. Civil servants decide and they thrust papers on Ministers' desks.
  It is important that the Minister should give us an idea of the circumstances in which clause 158 will be exercised, particularly the way in which payments to meet those directions are accountable to this House, even when the secrecy measure is invoked.
  The other significant expenditure is the £800 million to protect the pensioners affected by the transfer under clause 160. I take the view, which I am sure is held by my hon. Friends, that when the water industry is taken back into public ownership we should protect pension funds. I have never believed in expropriation and people who are foolish
  540
  enough to buy water shares should be warned that in my view we should deal with them on the ground of hardship. We should send them to DHSS offices as other people suffering hardship are. Otherwise, we should make sure that this public asset is returned to the people who presently own it—all the people of Britain.
  It is daylight robbery for the Government to abstract this public asset from the 55 million people who live in our country and sell it to a few of their cronies who have acquired money in a variety of ways—some of them highly disreputable—in the City. Pension funds should receive adequate consideration and I have quoted the amount that will be required to do that. I shall now deal with money that is not mentioned in the memorandum.
  I have had correspondence with the Minister about the re-laying of old pipes on private land and in private houses. I am talking not about estates but about terraced or back-to-back houses in constituencies such as mine. Bradford is an old industrial city and many of its houses were built in Victorian times. Many of them are in decent condition because much care and affection has been given to them by their owners. Some of them may not be in good condition because of lack of care by some—though not all —landlords.
  I would have welcomed in the money resolution provision for grant. I know that the Water Act 1945 allows the water authorities at present constituted only to provide and maintain pipes up to the border of the curtilage of the property. With back-to-back or terraced houses there is a problem. People at the front get the full water pressure but when the water pipe going round the back is within the curtilage of two private houses, the householder in the back-to-back group gets the worst water pressure. That means that people cannot have washing machines because they will not operate and cannot have a bath when their neighbour is having a bath.
  The Minister will say that the Water Act 1945 provides a limitation. Since this is such a big change in the statutory provisions, will he consider in Committee financial provisions so that the water authorities can allow for pensioners and other elderly people who entered these houses in their youth and bought them over a period of time? If they have old pipes the water authority will say, "You have a leaking pipe. Give us £550 and we will repair it, and we will need another £200 for resurfacing." That is more than many pensioners or people on low incomes can afford. There is no provision in the DHSS and local authorities do not make provision for such improvements, even by way of grants. There should be provision for older industrial cities such as Bradford, Leeds, perhaps Doncaster, Sheffield and others. I speak from knowledge and from representations made to me by people in my constituency. The Minister should consider that.
  This labyrinthine legislation—this massive legislation —has two main parts. I cannot remember another Bill with two such huge chunks. Perhaps there is some authority in the Bill that will allow the Minister to direct the authorities to provide the assistance that I have mentioned. If that is so, it is the one tiny part of the Bill that I shall welcome. I should be pleased if the Minister could guide me to such a part. If he cannot, I would like an assurance that he will do something about the matters that I have mentioned.
  10.50 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): I have a very short time in which to respond to many important points, so I hope that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) will forgive me if I try rapidly to answer as many as possible of the issues that he has brought to the attention of the House.
  The comments made by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) may have been heartfelt, but I regret that none of them was relevant to the money resolution. We are glad to hear that the Social and Liberal Democratic party would not bring the statutory water authorities into public ownership—unlike the commitment given by the Labour party last night, if the Labour party were to come to power again. That serious and important issue has arisen as a result of the debate. The hon. Gentleman referred to all the costs associated with the plcs, such as the importance of upgrading sewage treatment works. That is a matter for the plcs, which will have access to the money markets—access which they do not have at present. That does not come within the money resolution, nor does the debate about European funds.
  I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to my concluding speech at the half-way point of the debate late yesterday evening when I made a statement on disconnections. I hope that that statement will assist and satisfy him that we are conscious of the importance of an effective disconnections policy, but again I regret that that does not come within the ambit of the money resolution.
  All right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House respect and admire the hon. Member for Bradford, South for raising matters on the money resolution. It is important that they are listened to and treated seriously. I hope that I can follow up those aspects which I do not cover in the few remaining minutes by writing to the hon. Gentleman.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South rightly referred to the National Rivers Authority and the grants to it by the Secretary of State. Paragraph 17 to schedule 1 enables the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, to make grants to the NRA of such amounts, and on such terms, as he considers appropriate. He must, of course, Comptroller and Auditor-General with an account for each financial year of any grant paid and the Comptroller and Auditor-General must then certify and report on that account. As the hon. Gentleman knows, copies of the account and of the Comptroller and Auditor-General's report must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
  The grant-making power will enable grant-in-aid to meet the deficit on the NRA's operations. Although the NRA will be encouraged to maximise its income from direct charges, a deficit will arise largely because the environmental service charge will not be levied after 1989–90. Grant-in-aid is considered a more appropriate method of paying for services which are of benefit to the whole community. Grant will also be required to meet the NRA's administration costs and the costs of increased work on pollution control and research.
  The public expenditure provisions anticipate grant-in-aid of £40 million in 1989–90, £71 million in 1990–91 and £65 million in 1991–92 when income from discharge consents increases. I emphasise that because it is important for the hon. Gentleman and the House to know that
  542
  detailed consideration will be given to the nature of discharge consents and the charging methods applicable to them. They will represent a substantial form of income to the National Rivers Authority, but it is important for the Committee appointed to consider the Bill to look in detail at the provisions. Obviously, that income deducted from the overall amount is the relevant figure, and that will be far clearer as the NRA sets the appropriate framework for discharge costs.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned a figure of £71 million grant-in-aid from a turnover of £290 million. It is not intended to be additional, but the difference between the two will be raised through the charging procedure. I am sorry that I cannot provide him with a detailed figure of the difference for 1990–91, but, to be absolutely accurate, we need to look very closely at the charging method for discharge consents. As soon as that is available and discussed in Committee we shall be able to draw the precise figures that the hon. Gentleman is seeking.
  The payment out of the national loans fund of any sums required by a Minister of the Crown or by virtue of the Act for making loans, while it is wholly owned by the Crown, to a successor company of a water authority or to a holding company of such a company, arises under clause 78. The power to make loans is provided for the period between vesting and flotation, in which the successor company and its nominated holding company might need access to public sector funds. The loan would be made to the nominated holding company, except in the unlikely event that the successor company had not yet become a subsidiary of it. Clause 85 sets limits on the borrowing of the group of companies to which a successor company and its nominating company belong.
  In the remaining minutes, I shall address my remarks to the important issue of payments to existing pension funds. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the water authorities participate in the local government superannuation scheme. It is a statutory pension scheme governed by the Local Government Superannuation Regulations 1986, made under section 7 of the Superannuation Act 1972. Pensions payable under the Local Government Superannuation Regulations are official pensions within the meaning of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971. Pensions of water authority employees are, therefore, index-linked in accordance with statute.
  The cost of basic pensions is fully funded, but the cost of pension increases is met not from the superannuation funds but on an emerging cost basis. The administering authority makes the payments and, in general, is reimbursed by the last employing authority. The fund from which basic pensions are paid is the water authority superannuation fund, currently administered by the Severn-Trent water authority on behalf of all participants.
  The Government intend that, after the transfer date, the National Rivers Authority will be the administering body for that part of the WASF which remains after the transfer payments described. The NRA will also be made a scheduled body, so that its staff will be able to continue in the LGSS to which I have referred.
  I shall briefly mention the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised with regard to clause 4—the Director General of Water Services. The hon. Gentleman concentrated on the £3·7 million—an important figure. Let me try to clarify precisely how we have arrived at it and give some background information to the House.

  543
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, clause 4 provides for the appointment by the Secretary of State of an independent Director General of Water Services. Clause 4 also applies the provisions of schedule 3, which empowers the director general to appoint staff who will form the water services office, subject to the Treasury's approval, and for the payment from public funds of the expenses of the Director and his staff.
  The director general, who will have a position similar to those of the present Directors General of Telecommunications and Gas Supply, will be responsible for monitoring the activities and performance of companies appointed as water and sewerage undertakers, and, where necessary, enforcing the conditions in their licences. The director general will have a duty to ensure that customers are protected from unjustified increases in price or reductions in service, while ensuring that companies are able to finance the proper carrying out of their statutory functions. The director general will also exercise a wide range of statutory adjudicatory functions and will establish and maintain up to 10 regional customer service committees to represent consumers' interests locally.
  The director general will be supported by a new Government Department in the carrying out of his statutory responsibilities, and this will be similar to the Office of Telecommunications and the Office of Gas Supply and is likely initially to have a staff of 80. For instance, Ofgas has about 30. Approximately 50 will be based in a headquarters, probably outside south-east England, and the remainder will be in local offices servicing the regional customer service committees.
  The running costs of the water services office and of the customer services committees for the first full year of operation have been estimated at £3·7 million. The breakdown of that we estimate to be £2·7 million for the water services office and £1 million for the committees. The expenditure should be reimbursed to the Exchequer through the payment by water and sewerage undertakers of their licence fees. Therefore, no net public expenditure should be required.
  As I am in my last minute, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied if I write to him on the important specific points about the special administrator, referred to in clause 24. I hope that I have managed to satisfy the hon. Gentleman on the other points, save one —grants for national security. With the permission of the House and of the hon. Gentleman, I shall write to him on that point as well.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Water Bill ('the Act'), it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of the following, namely—

  544

  (a) grants by the Secretary of State to the National Rivers Authority;

  (b) the remuneration of, and any travelling or other allowances payable under the Act to, the Director General of Water Services and any staff of the Director, any other sums payable under the Act to or in respect of a person who holds or has held office as the Director and any expenses duly incurred by the Director or by any of his staff in consequence of the provisions of the Act;

  (c) the remuneration of the chairman of a customer service committee, any travelling or other allowances payable under the Act to such a chairman, to other members of a customer service committee or to members of a sub-committee, any other sums payable under the Act to or in respect of a person who holds or has held office as such a chairman or member and the expenses incurred by a customer service committee;

  (d) grants and loans by the Secretary of State to a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker in relation to which a special administration order has been made;

  (e) sums required by the Secretary of State for making any payment in respect of an indemnity given under the Act to a person appointed to achieve the purposes of a special adminstration order made in relation to a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker;

  (f) expenses incurred by the Treasury or the Secretary of State in acquiring securities of a holding company of a water authority 's successor company or rights to subscribe for any such securities;

  (g) compensation payable by the Secretary of State under the Act in respect of the exercise of functions in relation to trade effluent or in respect of loss or damage caused in connection with a power of entry;

  (h) grants in respect of compliance with directions given under the Act in the interests of national security;

  (i) sums required by the Secretary of State for making payments under the Act into any fund maintained for the purposes of any regulations under section 7 of the Superannuation Act 1972;

  (j) sums required by a Minister of the Crown for fulfilling guarantees given under the Act;

  (k) administrative expenses or charges incurred by any Minister of the Crown or Government department in consequence of the provisions of the Act;

  (l) increases attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act;

  (2) the payment out of the National Loans Fund of any sums required by a Minister of the Crown by virtue of the Act for making loans, while it is wholly owned by the Crown, to a successor company of a water authority or to a holding company of such a company;

  (3) the reduction of the assets of the National Loans Fund by amounts corresponding to such liabilities of a water authority's successor company, or of a holding company of such a company, in respect of any loans as the Secretary of State may by order extinguish.

  Water Bill [Money]

    WATER BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Water Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

    (1) the inclusion in appointments of water undertakers or sewerage undertakers made under that Act of conditions requiring the rendering of payments to the Secretary of State;

    (2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund.—[Mr. Maclean.]

  PETITION

    Leicester (Police Officers)
    10.59 pm
    Mr. Keith Vaz: I wish to present a petition on bahalf of Mr. Mike Preston, Mr. Andrew Palmer, Mrs. Mary Draycott and 9,997 other people, including myself, living in the outer areas of my constituency, in the electoral wards of West Humberstone, Humberstone, Thurncourt, Evington and Coleman, who are deeply concerned about the high levels of crime in the city of Leicester and the need for more police officers in the city.
    The petition supports the application by the chief constable of Leicestershire, Michael Hirst, for more police officers and is presented after a year-long campaign for additional officers in the knowledge that the Home Secretary will shortly be announcing his allocation of officers for 1989–90.
    The petitioners and I also believe that it is essential to the future of good policing in the outer estates that the Uppingham road police station be opened for a 24-hour period each day and night, and every day and night, so that our citizens, especially the elderly, can be secure.
    I hope that the Home Secretary will heed the demands of what amounts to one seventh of my entire constituency and allocate us the additional officers.
    To lie upon the Table.

  A27 (Noise Levels)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maclean.]
  11 pm
  Mr. Anthony Nelson: I welcome this opportunity to raise a serious environmental problem in my constituency—the noise emanating from the new A27 trunk road from Chichester to Havant. The quality of noise as much as its excessive level is quite intolerable for my many constituents living near this stretch of road. It is on their behalf that I speak today.
  Every new road brings its reliefs and its problems. This new section of the A27 trunk road was sorely needed and long awaited. The deaths, injuries and traffic congestion along the old route were the source of outcry for many years. Many residents, especially the very young and elderly, in communities along the route were frightened to cross the road. Drivers went in fear of their lives and in certainty of traffic congestion.
  When, after long delay and seemingly interminable public inquiries, the new road went ahead, there was great relief in those communities and along the south coast. I know that that view is shared by many hon. Members representing constituencies adjoining my own. Only this evening, I was talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) whom I see in his place, and my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall), both of whom have taken a close interest in this matter because of the relevance to their own constituents.
  My hon. Friend the Minister came down to open the new section of road on 19 August this year and we thank him for doing so. He will remember the very warm reception that he received on that occasion. However, few appreciated at that time, least of all myself, driving up the new road for the first time in a rather elderly car with him, just how noisy the new road would be when modern traffic in the volume and speed that it adopts used it to full effect, but, unfortunately, our worst fears have been exceeded.
  I have with me some 200 or more letters from my constituents, complaining in strong terms about the noise and calling for resurfacing or remedial measures to be taken. This is the catalogue of human distress. This is the file of distress that my constituents have suffered and about which they have written to me in such graphic terms over the past couple of months. Many of them are reasonable people, not given to extremism or complaining lightly, but they feel that the noise, while expected to some extent, has proved to be excessive and quite unbearable. Many of them describe the roar to which they are constantly subjected as similar to that from an aircraft runway, especially when heavy goods vehicles pass by, as they frequently do.
  Many are unable to enjoy their gardens or peace and quiet inside their homes. Many cannot sleep at night. Many have suffered a reduction in the market value of their homes, even though most neither wish nor intend to sell and leave the area. For many of my constituents, the quality of their life has changed materially, and for the worse, since this new section of road opened. In short, their peace has been shattered. They look to my hon. Friend to alleviate this problem urgently and to find the funds necessary.

  547
  I take from this file a couple of letters which are indicative of the representations that I have received every day from my constituents and about which they have been to see me. I quote first from a letter from Mr. Nightingale of Cemetery lane, Woodmancote, Emsworth. He says:
  "Living at the above address, I would like to point out that the peace and quiet of my home, garden, and environments have been destroyed by the noise from the new A27 trunk road, which passes at 80 metres distance from my bungalow. I very much hope that something can be done to alleviate the noise problem and thus relieve my suffering. I would also like to point out that when the wind is blowing in my direction, I can actually smell the fumes and exhaust from the road."
  Mr. Cyril Baker writes to me from Scant road in Hambrook, saying:
  "Being an O.A.P. and property owner, thus a rate payer, I am writing to you regarding the constant noise created since the opening of the new A27 Trunk Road which passes through the field opposite the front of my property. Not only has the value of my property depreciated but as my bedroom is in the front of the bungalow I find it impossible to sleep. Even in my back garden I can no longer enjoy peace and quiet. Your co-operation regarding this matter would be appreciated."
  Richard Stafford from West Ashling writes to me:
  "I know you are trying to remedy the intrusion that the 'roar' of this road has brought to the peace and quiet of these parts. Please persuade the Department to do something. We must live ½ mile away and the whine continues day and night; life for the people closer must be intolerable."
  Mrs. Sheila Frampton, writing from Fraser gardens in Southbourne, says;
  "I write to express extreme unhappiness with the noise levels of the above. The unceasing traffic noise is both distressing and irritating. It is an ever-present noise even more obvious at 3 a.m. than it is at 3 p.m."
  My constituents are obviously distressed, and I make no apology for reading out what they have said to me, because this is indicative of the real distress that is caused to individuals' lives—people's homes, the quiet and privacy of their environment, which they enjoy and for which they have paid a great deal of money. I believe that my hon. Friend—I hope that he will accept this obligation —will reply in sympathetic terms and offer some redress or alleviation of their plight.
  I first raised the question of the type of road surface and the noise implications with my hon. Friend some years ago, following representations from a number of constituents who were apprehensive about the use of the concrete surface. As always, my hon. Friend was courteous and assiduous in his reply. On 15 July 1987, he said to me:
  "as far as road surface noise is concerned our general experience has been that surfaces of brushed concrete do not produce noisier roads than bituminous surfaces designed to give traffic the same level of skid resistance."
  I have to tell my hon. Friend that neither I nor my constituents believe this to be the case. I have been to hear for myself the noise and disturbance with which my constituents are being asked to put up.
  I have visited residents and communities along the new route, with local councillors and representatives of the new A27 action steering group, which consists of residents associations of Fishbourne, Hanbrook, Woodmancote, Lumley and Emsworth. In my view, the noise results from excessive grooving or depths of brushing in the concrete road surface. It is not the noise emanating from the engines of vehicles but the noise of the tyres on the rough surface, which so permeates the countryside and so disturbs my constituents.
  548
  Interestingly, the noise varies greatly with the wind direction and the weather conditions. For some of my constituents, on occasion it can hardly be heard at all, and on others, it is distinct and permeates not only their properties but the structure of their buildings. There are some instances where properties on stretches of road where there is a great deal of curvature have a combination of noise effects that is extremely disturbing, I have visited some of my constituents in some of these homes. Although the noise varies with wind direction, it can be heard over suprising distances.
  I stood close to the A27 dual carriageway at Havant, which carries the same volume of traffic, but is surfaced in asphalt, and the noise level there is insignificant in comparison. Similarly, when driving along the road, the surface is noticeably quieter when on the asphalt sections over bridges and culverts.
  I understand from my correspondence with my hon. Friend that the Department of Transport's specification for the surface finish of brushed concrete provides that the average texture depth shall not be less than 0·75 mm. as determined by what is known as a sand patch test. I believe that that is a somewhat archaic method, given the new laser facilities for assessing surface depths, but it is the one that is used and, presumably, it is regarded by the authorities as being reliable. That minimum surface depth is to ensure that there is sufficient skid resistance. From inspecting the road myself, it is apparent that the texture depth is much deeper in places and the unevenness in some parts appears to be similar to mini potholes.
  The A27 action group has today delivered to me its own measurements of the surface texture depth. Those measurements were taken by an assiduous constituent at daybreak on a Sunday three weeks ago, while his wife kept a lookout for passing traffic. That was somewhat beyond the call of duty, but it has been helpful to the debate. By using the same sand patch test method, he found that the mean surface texture depth was some 30 per cent. more than the present guidelines advise and, in the worse cases, was some 60 per cent. more.
  In his letter to me of 18 November 1988, my hon. Friend the Minister, said that on this scheme the sand patch test results varied generally from 0·9 mm to 1·9 mm, with an average result of 1·3 mm. Even that is nearly double the minimum specification and in my judgment is much deeper on some parts of the road. Those parts of the road where it is much deeper give rise to noise and permeating noise, which is quite intolerable for my constituents.
  I ask my hon. Friend whether there is a maximum texture depth specified and, if not, why not? That is of importance not just in my area, but throughout the country where new roads are being built.
  Mr. Michael Marshall: My hon. Friend will accept that he is doing a great service, not just for his constituency, but nationally. He will know, of course, of the new plans for the A27 at Crossbush and at Arundel. I hope that my hon. Friend will urge our hon. Friend the Minister to assure us that the point that he is making will apply to the new extensions of the road allied to his own schemes and, especially, in the selection of tarmac rather than concrete as a principle.
  Mr. Nelson: I am obliged to my hon. Friend, because I believe that he supports the point that I am trying to make.

  549
  It does have relevance to other parts of the country as well as to my constituency. There is great concern that perhaps economies—reasonably and understandably being sought in the roads programme—may have an adverse impact on the environment and noise. Crossbush, which we discussed before this debate, is an important example. Therefore, I believe that other communities will be listening with great interest to my hon. Friend's reply.
  The planning inspector's report on this road back in 1984, at paragraph 79.03, said:
  "In order not to introduce more noise than is necessary into the lives of affected communities. I request that a major factor in the choice of road surface for this route should be its property to generate the minimum amount of traffic noise."
  To which the Secretaries of State responded on 12 June 1985 in paragraph 42 that
  "this will be taken fully into account during the contract letting procedures."
  I ask my hon. Friend to explain whether that was taken into account in awarding the contract and, if so, how.
  My hon. Friend the Minister wrote to me on 4 November 1988 asserting that
  "if this new road had been constructed with asphalt surfacing in accordance with the Department's current specification, it would not have produced a significantly lower traffic noise level."
  I contest now, as I did then, this assertion, especially as the grooving in the concrete is at least twice the depth of the minimum specification.
  The Minister went on to say:
  "the usual competitive arrangements allow for either concrete or bituminous construction to be accepted, with contracts awarded on the basis of the lowest cost for a particular job."
  All well and good, but what was the difference in the cost between surfacing the road in concrete or tarmacadam? Indeed was a quotation for bituminous construction even invited? This raises significant questions. Tenders should not be sought on the basis of price only. Does the Department make a point of inviting tenders for different types of surfacing in view of the implications of the different building materials involved?
  Most of my constituents who are affected consider that the only satisfactory conclusion is the resurfacing of the road with asphalt. My hon. Friend ruled this out last month because, in his words, the Government
  "could not justify the very substantial cost that would be involved."
  What cost would be involved, and how would this relate to the difference between the original tenders for concrete and for bituminous surfaces? I have been told that the road was budgeted originally at £30 million. Apparently the contract price was about £19 million, although the actual cost was a little higher. Will my hon. Friend confirm or deny these figures? It is important that he does that because it might demonstrate whether the job has been done on the cheap, but at the expense of quality and quietude.
  Last month I suggested to the Minister that, if it were technically feasible, the textured depth of the road should be "sandpapered" down, but he replied on 18 November that his Department was not aware of any machine that could plane concrete to a tolerance as fine as, say, 0·5 mm. But such a fine tolerance is not required. Any improvement or reduction in the highly grooved surface would bring a significant attenuation of noise.
  550
  The Minister also appears to place great reliance on the natural action of traffic as an abrasive in removing the high ridges within "a reasonable period". But what is "reasonable" and what degree of reduction in noise can be anticipated? My view is that it will take much longer than a year.
  It has been said that the noise from the new road surface will be reduced by 40 per cent. in the first year. But what does that 40 per cent. reduction mean? Sound intensity is measured on a logarithmic scale, so a reduction of sound intensity by 40 per cent. would mean that the measured sound level would be reduced by only about three dB(A). The chairman of Chichester district council, Mrs. Jean Illius, recently sent me the test findings of environmental health officers at two locations north of the road, in Hambrook and Woodmancote.
  The findings of 65 dB(A) and 65·5 dB(A) respectively were at or above the predicted noise levels provided by the Department of Transport at the commencement of the scheme and predicted for the year 2003. But as the volume of traffic is expected to rise significantly in the next 15 years, it is reasonable to assume that the actual noise levels for the year 2003 will be greater than predicted. While I welcome my hon. Friend's decision to undertake a reassessment of traffic noise levels, may I be told what action he will take if his original predictions are shown to have been exceeded?
  The Minister has told me that the Department of Transport could contemplate only work such as further bunds or barriers, but my impression is that these would provide little relief, even to nearby houses. Surprisingly, the trees along the route provide little or no sound cushion. Unless there is a considerable depth of densely planted trees, the attenuation provided is negligible.
  What redress or compensation is available to my constituents? Will the Minister look again at the question of resurfacing or planning works if the results of his tests show, as I believe they will, that the noise is excessive? Also, in view of the recent tragic death of a 15-year-old boy while trying to cross the road, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Havant, I hope that he will consider the aspects of access to the road and safety along its route.
  Will my hon. Friend confirm that in part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973, claims for compensation may be made for loss of value of property because of noise and other adverse physical factors? My constituents should be informed that claims may be made from 20 August 1989, one year before the road opening, and that anyone selling before then should register a claim with the Department of Transport after exchange of contracts but before completion. Claim forms are available from the Department's south-east regional office in Dorking.
  From what I know of my hon. Friend the Minister, I know that these words will not have fallen on deaf ears. I and my constituents look to him to make a constructive and positive response.
  11.20 pm
  The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I shall say some specific things first and then deal with more general issues, which is the reverse of normal procedure. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) referred to safety, and my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) has written

  551
  to me about it. We are considering the improvement of fencing along the road as a matter of urgency. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester talked about lighting. Hampshire county council has accepted that it is its responsibility to maintain the lighting in the tunnel, and it will give the matter urgent attention. Noise is important, but, as my hon. Friend says, it is safety first.
  Anyone listening to my hon. Friend would have understood how hard he has worked on these issues, the detail that he has gone into and the close links that he has had with his constituents and the constituents of others who are affected by the issue. I acknowledge the way in which he brought into the debate my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall). If I spent all the money that is available to me on extra facilities for existing road proposals, I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel that it would not be possible to bring Crossbush into the programme as soon as I would wish.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester has raised an environmental issue. Liberal Members are entirely absent from the Chamber. That is their position after a speech by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) on a water authority, during a debate on the money resolution, that had nothing to do with the question before the House. That shows how the Liberals treat local and national issues. My hon. Friend has introduced a national issue, and I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that is one of the reasons why you are chairing our proceedings.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester knows that, in the light of the concern which he and his constituents have raised, we have asked the consultants to reassess traffic and noise levels. The reassessment will take account of traffic flows, recorded in the three months since the road opened, and the road surface texture, using the new 1988 version of the report entitled "Calculation of Road Traffic Noise". If the original forecasts of noise levels are found to be significantly exceeded by the measured results and the forecasts which were built upon them, we shall consider whether additional protective measures can be justified. We hope to have the results early next year.
  It is too soon to draw firm conclusions either on the results of the new forecasts or on whatever measures might be taken—I do not want to raise my hon. Friend's hopes too high by offering him promises late at night and not delivering in the morning—but it does appear that noise levels are between 2 and 3 dB(A) higher than forecast. As my hon. Friend spelt out in his physics lesson, that is an appreciable difference. Of course, it is the same difference upwards as it would be downwards. We should not rubbish the effects of reductions or of increases in noise. At the least, if it is confirmed that noise levels are 2 or 3 dB(A) higher than those predicted, that would result in additional houses being offered secondary glazing.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester was slightly unfair to mounds. If someone is within about 100 yd of a mound or bund, there is an appreciable difference. The closer that someone is to the bund or mound, the greater the difference. Trees on their own do not affect the noise level. They have a psychological effect, however, because they cut off the sight of traffic. It is often the combination of the sight of traffic and the sound of it that makes life difficult to bear for those who have lived previously in an area that was quiet. We all know that in areas of the sort that are represented by those of my hon. Friends who are in the Chamber this evening—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) will
  552
  confirm this from his constituency experience—that when a road is built where people are already living, it can disturb them greatly. If a house is built following the construction of the road, people will move in and cheerfully put up with more noise than if the noise follows them.
  I understand the local concern. It would not be possible to resurface the road. The cost difference requested by my hon. Friend is £1·3 million, and that is an appreciable sum. If we have 30 to 40 completed road schemes a year and we were able to save £1·3 million on each, we could bring relief to many more communities. I am not saying that my hon. Friend's constituents must make sacrifices so that others may be bypassed. There is a responsibility to bring the environmental relief that this section of the A27 has brought to the many people who live on the existing road and we need to get value for money. Also, if we specified the type of surface, we would find that either the bitumen or the concrete suppliers would start to practice more monopoly pricing. We would lose a strong element of competition. There would be a loss not of £1·3 million, but of £2 million or £3 million on a surfacing contract. One of the reasons why we get value for money is that we allow competition.
  My hon. Friend referred to the inspector's report and to the decision letter when previous Secretaries of State said that they would take that into account. The information that, at any given level of steering resistance, roads have the same level of noise is based on scientific research. It does not state that a concrete grooving will always be achieved precisely as intended. My hon. Friend raised that point. He was rather hopeful about taking off any high ridges that may exist. It is important to ensure that we have the right skidding resistance. We were talking about trying to cut off peaks, if there are any, without affecting the skidding resistance of the road. We intend to spend £9 million in each of the next four years and £2 million a year thereafter to monitor the skidding resistance of our roads to see whether resurfacing work is inadequate. We expect that that small amount of money will produce a return of £5·50 for every £1 we spend in terms of accidents prevented. It is important to bear that in mind after my earlier points about casualty reductions.
  I obviously cannot say that on every occasion that asphalt is used it comes up to the intended specification. Extra safety and extra noise must be balanced. There may be signs that traffic is wearing out some of the ridges in a reasonable time. However, that cannot be claimed to reduce the noise by 2 or 3 dB(A). The likely figure is 1 dB(A) and that would not be noticeable to the general public, although it would be noticeable to noise meters.
  If successive ridges have created extra decibels, my hon. Friend should not be concerned about that. It may turn out that since the road was designed and the calculations were made, continued economic growth, the increase in he number of cars and the growth in general movement in the south-east and on the south coast in particular, may have been more of a cause of that. That would provide a new basis for the forecast for the design, which may bring about some of the changes in compensation arrangements.
  My hon. Friend asked me to confirm the section 1 compensation arrangements. He described them correctly. People who are selling before the year is up after the opening of the road, should register the claim between the exchange of contracts and completion. If they have any doubts, they can refer them to my hon. Friend. to the

  553
  Department, or to a surveyor, who can act as their agent. Those who are still in possession of their homes a year after the opening of the road can make a claim. We shall go in for extensive local publicity, so that no one loses the chance to claim for a reduction in value of his home because of noise or other relevant factors.
  My hon. Friend paid tribute to the importance of the new road. Although I said in my speech at the opening of the road—which was a cheerful occasion—that those who were experiencing noise for the first time would find it unpleasant—I cannot remember whether I used a stronger word than that—most of us understand that it is not nice to have to accept noise from a new road. Nor is it nice for local people living in the settlements along the old road to
  554
  have to put up with the traffic. Clearly, the traffic on the new road is travelling faster, and that will lead to an increase in noise. It may be generally better that that should be so, but we must always recognise that progress has its penalties.
  The constituents who sent 200 letters to my Department, some of which I have seen, and the letters that my hon. Friend held earlier, show that there is a problem. So far as the Department is able, it will try to solve it. However, I do not want to make any extravagant promises. Even with the increase of 20 to 40 per cent. in the next two years in road spending, we must watch out for the money while trying to be fair. When we receive the noise report, the new forecast will be presented in public. I hope that that will help my hon. Friend and his constituents.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Eleven o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Sea Defences
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the annual cost of sea defences in the United Kingdom from 1979 to the present year.

  Mr. Ryder
  Annual capital costs of sea defence works from 1979 to the present year in England, Wales and Northern Ireland which attracted Government funding are as follows:

  £ million

  England (estimated)

  Northern Ireland

  Wales

  1979–80

  18·3

  n/a

  0·427

  1980–81

  15·8

  n/a

  0·274

  1981–82

  16·7

  0·078

  0·225

  1982–83

  18·4

  0·128

  0·289

  1983–84

  23·0

  0·214

  0·757

  1984–85

  20·0

  0·311

  0·798

  1985–86

  17·9

  0·304

  0·121

  1986–87

  23·6

  0·149

  0·175

  1987–88

  27·6

  0·122

  0·058

  Coastal works in Scotland are carried out primarily to prevent erosion rather than to defend land against flooding from the sea, and, hence, expenditure has not been included.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current level of expenditure required to bring United Kingdom sea defences up to present day satisfactory levels.

  Mr. Ryder
  As a result of a comprehensive review of flood defence requiremens in England which was carried out recently, the need for an increased long-term programme of work was identified. The Government recently agreed to increase provision for the programme and this will facilitate additional capital funding of about £50 million over the next three years for local and water authority schemes both inland and on the coast; approximately half of this expenditure will be spent on sea defence works.

  From 1989 to 1992 it is estimated that capital funding for sea defence works in Wales and Northern Ireland will be £335,000 and £331,000 respectively. In Scotland work is necessary primarily for inland fluvial and coastal erosion works; no significant sea defence works are anticipated.

  Greenhouse Effect
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to establish the long term effects of the greenhouse effect on British coastlines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  A rise in the mean sea level is the main possible consequence of the greenhouse effect on British 238
  coastlines. A national research programme, led by the Department of the Environment and co-ordinated with European Community and world-wide research, is investigating the implications for the United Kingdom of the greenhouse effect. The results will be monitored carefully, particularly with regard to predictions of changes in mean sea level and the implications for the design of sea defences. The existing tide gauge network already provides useful information on actual changes in sea level.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the annual budget devoted by his Department to the investigation of the effects of the greenhouse effect and freak weather conditions on Britain's coastline.

  Mr. Ryder
  Responsibility for research into the greenhouse effect and its consequences rests primarily with the Department of the Environment, although my Department maintains close liaison on these matters. Some £2 million is spent annually by my Department on river and coastal research generally, of which about 60 per cent. is directed to research which will assist with the future planning and design of coastal defences.

  Sea Level
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the projected sea level rises for the mid 21st century; and what would be the corresponding effects to the British coastline.

  Mr. Ryder
  There is, at the moment, a wide range of predictions about the possible rise in sea levels. Because of the many uncertainties, however, it is not realistic to make firm assessments of the likely effects on the coastline.

  Bristol Channel (Sludge Dumping)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the environmental impact of the dumping of sludge in the Bristol channel south of Pwlldu Head; and if his Department will publish the studies that have been carried out in this area.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Scientists from my Department's directorate of fisheries research undertake a regular monitoring programme at the sewage sludge disposal ground in the Bristol channel. Results of this work have been published in Fisheries Research Technical Report number 59.

  Further information on the quality of fish and shellfish in the Bristol channel have been published in Aquatic Environment Monitoring reports numbers 10 and 16. All these publications are available in the Library of the House.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether funds will continue to be provided for Dr. Geoff Mead at the Institute of Food Research in Bristol and his work on the introduction of benign bacteria to chickens to kill salmonella organisms; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how much grant has been paid to Dr. Geoff Mead at the Institute of Food Research for research into the

  239
  suppression of salmonella organisms; what results have been obtained; whether further grant aid has been requested; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr Ryder
  The research conducted by Dr. Geoff Mead and his team of scientists over more than 10 years into the manipulation of microbial flora of the gut of young chickens has been supported by my Department and the Agricultural and Food Research Council at a current cost of about £100,000 annually. As stated in my reply to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), this work was reviewed as part of an extensive review of MAFF-commissioned research in microbiology and it was decided that funding should cease from April 1989. Since my reply to the hon. Member I understand that a commercial company has expressed interest in taking that work further. Funding is to be diverted to other important microbiological work.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the proportion of eggs produced in England which are infected with salmonella.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Fod what proportion of British egg production is now infected with salmonella.

  Mr. Ryder
  I regret that it is not possible to make a precise estimate, but I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health told the House on 5 December at column 19—that the risk of infection to any individual is small and the risk to the healthy adult is small indeed. The industry and the Government are working together urgently to reduce that risk to a minimum.

  Food Additives
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the safety, or otherwise, of the use of "E" numbered substances in processed foods; if he will examine latest reports on such substances from other countries, including the United States of America; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  All available world-wide information on the safety of food additives is assessed by the committees of independent experts who advise me on these matters. Any information which might subsequently affect the approval of any food additive is carefully reviewed. The prefix "E" indicates those food additives whose use has been approved throughout the European Community.

  Badgers
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will arrange for the area of some farms where a breakdown or breakdowns involving bovine tuberculosis has occurred to be exempt from badger control to enable an assessment of the control programme to be made.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  An experimental area already exists where badgers are not removed when TB breakdowns in cattle occur. This area, which is in Gloucestershire, contains 18 farms which are not subject to badger control.

  The creation of additional areas comparable with the Gloucestershire study area was considered by Professor
  240
  Dunnet in his review of the badger control strategy in 1986. He concluded that the cost of maintaining such areas made the proposal impractical.

  The current badger control strategy is that recommended by Professor Dunnet. It is kept under review, but in accordance with Professor Dunnet's recommendation it needs to operate for at least three years before a reliable review of its effects on the extent of herd breakdowns can be carried out.

  Shellfish
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the results of the recent survey into shellfish stocks in the English channel; and whether he intends to take any action to conserve stocks.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My Department is currently investigating the state of crab stocks in the English channel for which a major sampling programme has just been completed. The scallop fishery is also being investigated. Both investigations are due to be completed in 1990 and the results will be published.

  Disabled Persons (Staff)
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of his Ministry's staff are classed as disabled.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  1·3 per cent. of the Ministry's permanent staff are registered disabled—as at 1 November 1988.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agricuture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide details of expenditure in 1987–88 and 1988–89 by the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce and the agricultural departments on market regulation under the common agricultural policy.

  Mr. Ryder
  Details are given of the outturn for 1987–88 and the latest forecast of outturn for 1988–89.

  £ million

  1987–88 (Actual outturn)

  1988–89 (Forecast outturn)

  (i) Expenditure by the intervention board for agricultural produce

  Cereals

  229·4

  163·8

  Beef and Veal

  201·4

  160·9

  Pigmeat

  -1·9

  0·6

  Sugar

  151·1

  135·2

  Processed goods

  47·6

  78·8

  Milk products

  251·1

  79·3

  Oilseeds

  208·3

  167·3

  Sheepmeat

  119·4

  104·2

  Others

  16·6

  33·8

  Total

  1,222·9

  923·9

  (ii) Expenditure by the agricultural departments

  Payments to producers giving up milk production

  51·0

  74·1

  Suckler cow premium scheme

  36·7

  37·8

  Annual premium on ewes

  80·6

  202·0

  Small cereals producers

  1·7

  1·9

  Total

  170·0

  315·8

  Grand total

  1,392·9

  1,239·7

  241
  Some of the expenditure shown benefits consumers and trade interests rather than United Kingdom producers.

  The figures for the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce are made up of several elements and include refunds on intra-Community trade, import and export refunds on third country trade, the beef and sheep variable premium schemes (net of clawback for sheepmeat and charges on beef exported and sold into intervention), aid for private storage and animal feed, certain other marketing and production subsidies and the cost of purchasing commodities into intervention less proceeds from sales. The figures are also net of other receipts treated as negative expenditure, namely monetary compensatory amounts levied on intra-Community trade (in the case of pigmeat these exceeded expenditure prior to 1988–89), the co-responsibility and supplementary levies on milk producers and the co-responsibility levy on cereals. Receipts from levies on the production and storage of sugar and isoglucose and on third country exports, which are regarded as Community own resources, are excluded. The figures include the United Kingdom share of the EC school milk subsidy scheme.

  For the annual premium on ewes from the 1985 marketing year, late publication of the final rate of payment has delayed the making of some payments into the following year. The forecast for 1988–89 provides for slippage from the 1987 marketing year and payment for the 1988 marketing year in full.

  Of the estimated outturn for 1988–89 £1,507·4 million is expected to be financed from the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund (EAGGF); in 1987–88 £1,086·7 million was thus financed. However, because the United Kingdom is a net contributor to the European Community budget, the whole of this expenditure is attributable to the Exchequer. Receipts from the European Community do not always relate to expenditure in the period. For market support there was prior to 1987 little delay in reimbursement of expenditure but in that year a delay of two months was introduced as an economy measure and this was lengthened to two and a half months from 1988. Receipts for 1988–89 reflect new arrangements for the depreciation of stocks agreed at the February 1988 European Council.

  The individual totals may not add up due to rounding.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give details of expenditure in 1987–88 and 1988–89 by the agricultural department on agricultural grants and subsidies excluding regulation under the common agricultural policy.

  Mr. Ryder
  Details are given of the outturn for 1987–88 and the latest forecast of outturn for 1988–90.

  1987–88 (Actual outturn)

  1988–89 (Forecast outturn)

  £ million

  £ million

  Price guarantees

  Wool

  0·7

  0·1

  Potatoes

  —

  —

  Total

  0·7

  0·1

  Support for capital and other improvements

  Environmentally sensitive areas

  2·9

  9·1

  Agriculture and horticulture development scheme

  32·3

  25·9

  242

  1987–88 (Actual outturn)

  1988–89 (Forecast outturn)

  £ million

  £ million

  Guidance premiums

  2·3

  0·8

  Farm accounts

  0·7

  0·5

  Farm structures

  0·4

  0·4

  Northern Ireland agricultural development programme

  2·0

  1·6

  Agriculture and horticulture grant scheme

  3·6

  1·8

  Agriculture improvement scheme (EC)

  18·9

  28·4

  Agriculture improvement scheme (National)

  9·0

  9·0

  Others

  0·3

  0·3

  Total

  72·4

  77·8

  Support for agriculture in special areas

  Hill livestock compensatory allowances

  121·0

  116·7

  Additional benefit under AHDS, NIADP, AHGS, AIS (EC) and AIS (National)

  20·9

  25·9

  Others

  4·1

  8·4

  Total

  145·9

  151·0

  Other payments

  Milk outgoers scheme

  11·1

  11·6

  Crofting building grants and loans/net

  3·3

  4·1

  Sheep compensation scheme 1986

  1·0

  1·1

  Storm damage 1987

  —

  1·7

  Co-operation grants

  1·7

  2·1

  Farm diversification:—

  Capital grants

  —

  2·0

  Marketing feasibility grants

  —

  0·8

  Others

  1·0

  1·0

  Total

  18·1

  24·5

  Grand Total

  237·1

  253·4

  Some of this expenditure attracts contributions from the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund. These are mainly received in the following year. In 1988–89 £44·1 million is expected to be received from the fund compared with £41 million in 1987–88.

  The individual figures may not add up to the totals shown due to roundings.

TRANSPORT

  Train Times
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to how many trains arrived at exactly the scheduled time in the last 12-month period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that the information is not available in the form requested. The punctuality objective for Network South East (NSE) is that 90 per cent. of trains should arrive on time or within five minutes; for the provincial sector, that 85-97 per cent. of trains should arrive on time or within five minutes depending on the service; and for InterCity that 90 per cent. of trains should arrive on time or within 10 minutes. In 1987–88, NSE exceeded the agreed punctuality objective with 92 per cent. of services arriving on time or within five minutes. 97 per
  243
  cent. of provincial services achieved the objective, and InterCity performance fell some way short of its target at 87 per cent.

  VAT
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessments he has made as to the likely effect on(a) his Department's capital building programme and (b) the rent the Department will pay under occupational leases of implementation of the European Court of Justice's judgment on value added tax on non-domestic buildings.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Implementation of the European Court of Justice's judgment on VAT will have no effect on the Department's capital building programme since compensating adjustments have been made to the relevant expenditure provisions. At this stage, before landlords have decided whether to exercise their option to tax rents, it is not possible to offer estimates of the effects of the judgment on rental costs.

  Road Renewal
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many miles of motorway it is intended to renew in 1988–89;

  (2) how many miles of trunk road it is intended to renew in 1988–89;

  (3) how many miles of motorway it is intended to renew in each of the three years 1989–90, 1990–91, and 1991–92;

  (4) how many miles of trunk road it is intended to renew in each of the three years 1989–90, 1990–91, and 1991–92.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The mileages of motorways and trunk roads renewed this year are likely to be about 52 and 106, respectively. These are lower than planned as a result of the rescheduling of capital maintenance announced on 20 June at column 455.

  I am looking to competition between contractors to contain future price increases, so far as possible.

  Subject to that, we shall aim to increase the mileages to be renewed each year over the next three years to averages of 84 miles of motorway and 233 miles of trunk road. The maintenance programme for 1989–90 has not been finalised. It will be announced in March as usual.

  London Assessment Study
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which of the options listed in the east London assessment study stage 2a report he has instructed Ove Arup and partners to develop during the east London assessment study stage 2b.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We have not yet taken any view on the preliminary options produced by the study consultants. This must await the submission of the consultant's report in the summer 1989.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many representations he has received opposing options presented in the stage 2a reports of the London assessment study;

  (2) how many representations he has received supporting the general principle of the London assessment study since the publication of the stage 2a reports in August; and from what types of organisations these have been received.
  244
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We have received about 600 representations expressing concern about some of the study options. Organisations supported some options and opposed others.

  M1 (Accidents)
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many reported accidents have occurred on the M1 between London and Derby, junction 25, for the last period of 12 months for which figures are available; and what were the figures for(a) 12 months earlier, (b) five years earlier and (c) 10 years earlier.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The numbers of injury accidents on the M1 between London, junction 1, and Derby, junction 25, for the requested years are shown in the table.

  Injury Accidents on M1: between Junctions 1 and 25: 1977, 1982, 1986, 1987

  Year

  Accidents

  1977

  590

  1982

  616

  1986

  685

  1987

  721

  Note: Personal injury accidents only

  Channel Tunnel
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what role he expects the Kent county council to play in specifying the physical and acoustic characteristics of the associated environmental works that would form part of the capital cost of British Rail's proposed high-speed line between London and the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Portillo
  I expect British Rail's proposals to be the subject of consultation with Kent county council.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether, if British Rail's proposed high-speed line between London and the Channel tunnel is financed in the public sector, the costs of all forms of compensation to the owner of properties affected, both that already paid or to be paid under British Rail's ex-gratia scheme and that to be paid statutorily, will form part of the capital cost of the project for the purpose of calculating the rate of return.

  Mr. Portillo
  It is normal practice for all the costs associated with British Rail investment proposals to be taken into account for the purposes of assessing the viability of those proposals. The same is true of road schemes.

  Traffic Congestion
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to the causes of the severe traffic congestion in the east end of London on Friday 2 December.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A number of incidents contributed to the evening traffic congestion in east London on 2 December.

  In particular an accident on the westbound carriageway of A13 Canning Town flyover meant that westbound traffic was restricted to one lane for one and three quarter hours from 3.34 pm.

  Manchester Airport
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what progress has been made in the negotiations on the construction of a rail link to Manchester airport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I am awaiting a jointly agreed statement on the financing of this link from Greater Manchester PTE, British Rail, and Manchester international airport.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment (Explosion)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what road closures followed the explosion at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Burghfield on Friday 2 December.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There were no road closures.

  Level Crossings
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the recommended period of time before the arrival of a train for the closing of fully manned level crossing gates.

  Mr. Portillo
  There is no standard recommended time for the closure of fully manned level crossing gates before the arrival of a train. The signalman should, however, close the gates in time to clear the railway signals interlocked with them so that the train approaching the crossing can do so without reducing its speed.

  London Regional Transport
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, when he next meets the chairman of London Regional Transport, he will discuss the practice of making the cheap price capital visitors' card available exclusively to British Rail passengers.

  Mr. Portillo
  Ticketing is a commercial matter for London Regional Transport.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  School Places
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many appeals to local authorities have been lodged so far during 1988 against the allocation of school places; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  This information is not available. An informal survey of local education authorities carried out by the Department in the late autumn of 1987 indicated that there had been in that year 8,253 appeals against school admission decisions to committees set up by local education authorities under section 7 of the Education Act 1980. 3,177 of these appeals were in respect of primary schools and 5,076 for secondaries. In addition, a total of at least 2,245 appeals against admission decisions were made to committees set up by governors of voluntary-aided and special agreement schools during 1987, 469 in respect of primary schools and 1,776 for secondaries.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretry of State for Education and Science if he will list all the schools which 246
  receive pupils paid for in whole or part under the assisted places scheme and the number of assisted place pupils each school had in 1987–88.

  Mr. Butcher
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number of Assisted Place Holders 1987–88

  Abbey School

  69

  Abingdon School

  90

  Aldenham School

  24

  Alice Ottley School

  70

  Alleyn's School

  198

  Arnold School

  76

  Ashford School

  43

  Bancroft's School

  76

  Bath High School

  90

  Batley Grammar School

  249

  Bedales School

  9

  Bedford High School

  92

  Bedford Modern School

  136

  Bedford School

  76

  Dame Alice Harpur School

  145

  Belvedere School

  163

  Berkhamsted School

  29

  Berkhamsted School for Girls

  28

  Birkenhead High School

  258

  Birkenhead School

  245

  Bishop's Stortford College

  30

  Blackheath High School

  101

  Bolton School (Boys)

  262

  Bolton School (Girls)

  251

  Bradford College

  0

  Bradford Girls' Grammar School

  58

  Bradford Grammar School

  201

  Brentwood School

  101

  Brighton and Hove High School

  152

  Brighton College

  99

  Bristol Cathedral School

  150

  Bristol Grammar School

  263

  Bromley High School

  120

  Bruton School for Girls

  127

  Bury Grammar School (Boys)

  198

  Bury Grammar School (Girls)

  229

  Canford School

  35

  Carmel College

  91

  Casterton School

  43

  Caterham School

  109

  Central Newcastle High School

  112

  Charterhouse

  14

  Cheadle Hulme School

  129

  Chigwell School

  70

  Churcher's College

  112

  City of London School

  124

  City of London School for Girls

  104

  Clifton College

  67

  Clifton High School

  52

  Colfe's School

  183

  Colston's School

  89

  Colston's Girls' School

  145

  Coventry Schools

  245

  Cranleigh School

  38

  Croydon High School

  119

  Culford School

  46

  Dame Allan's Boys' School

  142

  247

  Number of Assisted Place Holders 1987–88

  Dame Allan's Girls School

  127

  Dauntsey's School

  54

  Denstone College

  114

  Dulwish College

  273

  Edgehill College

  123

  Eltham College

  104

  Emanuel School

  289

  Epsom College

  30

  Exeter School

  164

  Farnborough Hill School

  181

  Felsted School

  47

  Forest School

  138

  Friends 'School

  79

  Godolphin and Latymer School

  182

  Gresham's School

  10

  Haberdashers' Aske's School, Borehamwood

  229

  Haberdashers' Aske's School for Girls Elstree

  137

  Hampton School

  197

  Harrogate College

  18

  Hereford Cathedral School

  233

  Highgate School

  33

  Hulme Grammar (Boys)

  203

  Hulme Grammar (Girls)

  178

  Hymers College

  152

  Ipswich High School

  136

  Ipswich School

  79

  James Allen's Girls School

  157

  John Lyon School

  94

  Kent College

  80

  King Edward's School at Bath

  128

  King Edward's School, Birmingham

  281

  King Edward VI High School, Birmingham

  173

  King Edward VII School, Lytham

  214

  King Edward VI School, Norwich

  101

  King Edward VI School, Southampton

  222

  King Edward's School, Witley

  76

  King's College School

  93

  King's High School for Girls, Warwick

  170

  King's School, Chester

  94

  King's School, Macclesfield

  177

  King's School, Rochester

  57

  King's School, Worcester

  136

  Kingston Grammar School

  129

  Kingswood School

  36

  Kirkham Grammar School

  63

  Lady Eleanor Holles School

  74

  La Sagesse Convent School

  143

  Latymer Upper School

  291

  Leeds Girls' High School

  127

  Leeds Grammer School

  194

  Leys School

  29

  Liverpool College

  174

  Lord Wandsworth College

  78

  248

  Number of Assisted Place Holders 1987–88

  Loreto Convent Grammer School

  71

  Loughborough Grammar School

  120

  Loughborough High School

  94

  Magdalen College School

  117

  Malvern College

  57

  Manchester Grammar School

  271

  Manchester High School

  165

  Maynard School

  158

  Merchant Taylors' School, Liverpool

  186

  Merchant Taylors' School for Girls Liverpool

  171

  Merchant Taylors' School Northwood

  85

  Mill Hill School

  78

  Monkton Coombe School

  38

  Mount St. Mary's College

  59

  Newcastle-Under-Lyme School

  459

  Northampton High School

  178

  North London Collegite School

  73

  Norwich High School

  171

  Nottingham Girls' High School

  188

  Northampton High School

  89

  Notting Hill and Ealing High School

  116

  Old Palace School

  195

  Oxford High School

  97

  Perse School for Boys

  57

  Perse School for Girls

  79

  Plymouth College

  182

  Pocklington School

  131

  Portsmouth Grammar School

  188

  Portsmouth High School

  149

  Putney High School

  105

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar School, Beckenham

  246

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar School, Wakefield

  153

  Queen Elizabeth's Hospital School, Bristol

  168

  Queen Mary School, Lytham

  237

  Queen's College, Taunton

  63

  Queen's School, Chester

  84

  Ratcliffe College

  52

  Redland High School

  79

  Red Maid's School

  157

  Reigate Grammar School

  109

  Repton School

  45

  Rossall School

  43

  Royal Grammar School, Guildford

  116

  Royal Grammar School, Newcastle

  308

  Royal Grammar School, Worcester

  185

  St. Albans School

  124

  249

  Number of Assisted Place Holders 1987–88

  St. Albans High School for Girls

  59

  St. Ambrose College

  87

  St. Anselm's College

  175

  St. Bede's College

  213

  St. Bees School

  82

  St. Benedict's School

  71

  St. Catherines's School

  36

  St. Dunstan's College

  160

  St. Edmund's College, Ware

  65

  St. Edward's College, Liverpool

  385

  St. George's College

  28

  St. Helen's School

  28

  St. John's College, Southsea

  181

  St. John's School, Leatherhead

  15

  St. Joseph's College, Ipswich

  76

  St. Joseph's Convent, Reading

  121

  St. Mary's College, Crosby

  246

  St. Mary's Convent, Cambridge

  95

  St. Mary's Hall, Brighton

  49

  St. Maur's Convent, Weybridge

  62

  St. Paul's School, Barnes

  72

  St. Paul's Girls' School, Hammersmith

  63

  St. Peter's School, York

  124

  St. Swithin's School, Winchester

  3

  Salesian College

  86

  School of St. Helen and St. Katherine

  103

  Sedbergh School

  27

  Sheffield high School

  99

  Shrewsbury High School

  85

  Sir William Perkins' School

  85

  South Hampstead High School

  64

  Stamford School

  71

  Stamford High School

  64

  Stockport Grammar School

  269

  Stonyhurst College

  24

  Stowe School

  5

  Streatham Hill and Clapham High School

  154

  Sutton High School

  66

  Sutton Valence School

  50

  Sydenham High School

  109

  Talbot Heath School

  139

  Taunton School

  50

  Tonbridge School

  2

  Trent College

  116

  Trinity School of John Whitgift

  136

  Truro School

  110

  Truro High School

  55

  University College School

  69

  Upton Hall Convent School

  153

  Ursuline High School

  133

  Wakefield High School

  143

  Walthamstow Hall

  77

  Warwick School

  137

  250

  Number of Assisted Place Holders 1987–88

  Wellingborough School

  55

  Wellington College

  44

  Wellington School

  199

  Wells Cathedral School

  66

  West Buckland School

  52

  Westminster School

  26

  Whitgift School

  101

  William Hulme Grammar School

  207

  Wimbledon High School

  63

  Winchester College

  25

  Wisbech Grammar School

  236

  Withington Girls' School

  89

  Wolverhampton Grammar School

  260

  Woodbridge School

  101

  Woodhouse Grove School

  113

  Wycliffe College

  42

  Total

  26,900

  Independent Schools (Costs)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the local education authorities which pay for places for pupils residing in their areas to attend independent schools, excluding special schools; and what are the numbers of pupils each supported in whole or in part during 1987–88.

  Mr. Butcher
  On the basis of returns made to the Department by local education authorities in January 1988 the numbers of pupils being funded by local education authorities to attend independent schools, excluding pupils either at special schools or receiving special educational treatment, were as follows:

  Local education authorities

  Number of pupils

  Barking

  0

  Barnet

  4

  Bexley

  0

  Brent

  0

  Bromley

  0

  Croydon

  8

  Ealing

  0

  Enfield

  9

  Haringey

  0

  Harrow

  0

  Havering

  7

  Hillingdon

  4

  Hounslow

  0

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  2

  Merton

  0

  Newham

  9

  Redbridge

  82

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  1

  Sutton

  0

  Waltham Forest

  0

  ILEA

  78

  Birmingham

  9

  Coventry

  0

  Dudley

  4

  Sandwell

  2

  Solihull

  0

  Walsall

  4

  Wolverhampton

  4

  Knowsley

  6

  251

  Number of pupils

  Liverpool

  5

  St. Helens

  5

  Sefton

  0

  Wirral

  630

  Bolton

  5

  Bury

  1

  Manchester

  0

  Oldham

  9

  Rochdale

  3

  Salford

  4

  Stockport

  5

  Tameside

  1

  Trafford

  1,524

  Wigan

  9

  Barnsley

  0

  Doncaster

  0

  Rotherham

  0

  Sheffield

  0

  Bradford

  0

  Calderdale

  180

  Kirklees

  3

  Leeds

  0

  Wakefield

  0

  Gateshead

  0

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  4

  North Tyneside

  0

  South Tyneside

  0

  Sunderland

  0

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  Avon

  16

  Bedfordshire

  0

  Berkshire

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  7

  Cambridgeshire

  26

  Cheshire

  956

  Cleveland

  8

  Cornwall

  0

  Cumbria

  8

  Derbyshire

  2

  Devon

  13

  Dorset

  3

  Durham

  4

  East Sussex

  32

  Essex

  5

  Gloucestershire

  31

  Hampshire

  11

  Hereford and Worcester

  257

  Hertfordshire

  13

  Humberside

  3

  Isle of Wight

  3

  Kent

  11

  Lancashire

  56

  Leicestershire

  12

  Lincolnshire

  624

  Norfolk

  7

  North Yorkshire

  8

  Northamptonshire

  0

  Northumberland

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  20

  Oxfordshire

  0

  Shropshire

  8

  Somerset

  11

  Staffordshire

  0

  Suffolk

  0

  Surrey

  28

  Warwickshire

  25

  West Sussex

  26

  Wiltshire

  97

  Clwyd

  15

  Dyfed

  1

  Gwent

  1

  Gwynedd

  20

  Mid Glamorgan

  0

  Powys

  0

  252

  Number of pupils

  South Glamorgan

  1

  West Glamorgan

  1

  Schools (Status)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in the Official Report, specifying in each case the local authorities concerned, the voluntary body concerned and the name, composition and status of the schools, those schools which from 1980 to the latest date for which information is available, have changed from (a) independent to voluntary status and (b) voluntary to independent.

  Mr. Butcher
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Children (Special Needs)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to publish a consultative document on the educational needs of children with a dual sensory impairment.

  Mr. Butcher
  My right hon. Friend intends to publish a policy statement shortly.

DEFENCE

  Expenditure
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total of United Kingdom defence spending since 1958 up to and including 1988–89(a) in cash and (b) at today's prices.

  Mr. Freeman
  Total defence expenditure since 1958, including Supply Estimates provision for 1988–89, has been £219 billion in cash and £600 billion at 1988–89 prices, using defence-specific price deflators.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contingency plans his Department has made for the production of military plutonium following the decommissioning of Chapelcross and Calder Hall nuclear power stations.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The long-term future of these reactors and any defence requirement for their replacement will be kept under review as appropriate.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment, Burghfield
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what caused the explosion at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Burghfield in Berkshire on Friday 2 December; at what time the explosion occurred; if there were any casualties; and what damage was caused to property at Burghfield and in the surrounding area;

  (2) if it is normal practice to burn surplus high explosives at Burghfield; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what information was given to the media following the explosion at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Burghfield on Friday 2 December.
  253
  Mr. Sainsbury
  A minor unplanned explosion occurred at AWE Burghfield at 0606 on the morning of 2 December. It took place during the routine burning of surplus conventional explosive waste on a special open site, within the main boundary fence, which is normally used for this purpose. There was no personal injury and no danger to the work force or public at any time. Such burning is controlled remotely and is carried out when the work force is not present as an additional safety precaution. The slight damage sustained on site was localised to a few broken windows and, to the best of our knowledge, no damage was caused outside the establishment. No radioactive material was involved or in any way at risk in this incident.

  The handling and disposal of the explosives are governed by strict controls laid down by the Defence Safety Services Organisation (DSSO). These regulations and checks cover such matters as safety distances, warnings, demarcation, access, emergency services, procedures and records. The DSSO had licensed AWE Burghfield to carry out explosive disposal in recognition of their compliance with these standards but such work has now been suspended while a detailed enquiry is conducted into the cause of the explosion. Security considerations preclude publication of the enquiry report though the local trades unions will be fully involved.

  The site's own emergency services were on hand but were not required to take any immediate action as there was no fire and no continuing emergency. Likewise, the local fire brigade and police were alerted automatically but took no action on arrival. The essential facts were made available to the media promptly.

  Hong Kong (Explosion)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cause of the explosion in Hong Kong on Monday 5 December which killed two service men.

  Mr. Freeman
  There was an explosion at Cassino Lines, in the New Territories, Hong Kong, on Sunday 4 December at 11.22 hours local time, in which one officer was killed and another seriously injured. Initial investigations suggested that the explosion was caused by a hand grenade. The Royal Military Police and Royal Hong Kong Police are conducting a joint investigation, and have announced that the case is being treated as murder. There is thought to be little likelihood of terrorist involvement.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Holiday Visits
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the approximate cost of holiday visit passages paid in respect of(a) children of the Ministry of Overseas Development personnel and (b) children of technical co-operation officers in receipt of education allowances for the latest available year.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The latest year for which figures are available is 1987–88. In that year, the cost of holiday visit passages for children of staff of the Overseas Development Administration (formerly the Ministry of Overseas Development) was £22,200. For children of all personnel financed from technical co-operation funds, including technical co-operation officers and supplementees, the cost was £990,000.

THE ARTS

  Vishnu (Statues)
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what steps he has taken to establish the legal provenance of the two statues of Vishnu which were sold at Sotheby's on 14 November.

  Mr. Luce
  It would be inappropriate for me to interfere in commercial matters. It is for the parties involved to satisfy themselves on the legal position.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will consider the contents of the United, Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation convention of 14 November 1970 on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import and export, and transfer of ownership, of cultural property, in relation to the sale of two statues of Vishnu at Sotheby's on 14 November.

  Mr. Luce
  Her Majesty's Government are not a party to this convention.

  British Library
  Mr. Buchan
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many seats the public auditorium in the new British Library building at St. Pancras will have.

  Mr. Luce
  The auditorium of the new British Library, currently under construction at St. Pancras, will contain 255 seats. Additionally, there will be spaces for five wheelchairs for the disabled.

  Mr. Buchan
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what was the reason for the cost escalation in the first phase of the Corn Merchant's Stores conversion at the British Library, Boston Spa, from £600,000 in November 1986 to a final cost of £2·309 million in 1988.

  Mr. Luce
  The figure of £600,000 to which I referred in answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on 17 November 1986 at column 30 was not an estimate of the cost of the conversion of the Corn Merchant's Stores but was the Government's earmarked funding for the project for 1987–88. This was part of a total Government commitment of £1·6 million over three years, the balance of the cost being contributed by the British Library. There was no material change in the estimated cost of the project between 1986 and 1988.

  Mr. Buchan
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is the total area of office accommodation for British Library staff in phase I of the new St. Pancras building.

  Mr. Luce
  It is planned to build 1,839 sq m of office space in stage 1A of the new British Library building. This area includes all associated circulation space.

  Stage 1A is currently under construction and will be completed in 1993. The amount of office accommodation space to be included in the completion phase is not yet known.

  Mr. Buchan
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when the British Library's strategic plan for business information will be published.

  Mr. Luce
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 4 July 1988 at column 469.
  255
  Mr. Buchan
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether the open access shelving provisions and reader seats for science and technology readers in the phase I St. Pancras building will be less or more than the present provisions in the Holborn reading rooms.

  Mr. Luce
  There are in total 144 reader desks in the two science reference and information services (SRIS) building at Holborn; this provision compares with 178 standard reader desks which will be available at St. Pancras by 1993, with some 60 additional desks planned to be available by 1996. In addition, stools are provided at Holborn, but are not yet a formal part of the St. Pancras brief.

  The length of open access shelving at Holborn is approximately 11·7 km. This compares with 12·6 km which will be available at St. Pancras in 1993, with some 6 km of additional shelving by 1996.

  Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he is able to announce the publication date of the report of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art for the year ended 30 June.

  Mr. Luce
  I have today presented the 34th report of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art for 1987–88. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of Parliament.

  Arts Support
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he is satisfied that the present arrangements for the support of the arts through the Arts Council and the regional arts associations in England are adequate to meet changing needs.

  Mr. Luce
  I believe that the time has come to review the existing structure in the light of recent changes and present developments. After consultation with the chairman of the Arts Council, Lord Rees-Mogg, and his successor designate, Mr. Peter Palumbo, I have invited Mr. Richard Wilding, the present head of the Office of Arts and Libraries who retires from the public service at the end of this month, to conduct a review in consultation with the parties concerned and to report to me by 31 October 1989.

  The review will be primarily concerned with the structure of support, and the way in which the various parts of the system fit together. It will be conducted on the basis that the arm's-length principle will continue to

  Minister and other paid office holders

  Current official salary

  January 1989 official salary

  Percentage increase

  Current total salary (including reduced Parliamentary salary of £ 16,911)

  Total January 1989 salary (including reduced Parliamentary salary of £18,148)

  Percentage increase

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Prime Minister1

  45,787

  46,109

  0·70

  62,698

  64,257

  2·49

  Mr. Speaker

  35,887

  36,209

  0·90

  52,798

  54,357

  2·95

  Cabinet Minister (C)

  34,157

  34,479

  0·94

  51,068

  52,627

  3·05

  Cabinet Minister (L)

  40,438

  41,997

  3·86

  Minister of State (C)

  23,887

  24,209

  1·35

  40,798

  42,357

  3·82

  Minister of State (L)

  34,688

  37,047

  6·80

  Parliamentary Secretary (C)

  17,897

  18,219

  1·80

  34,808

  36,367

  4·48

  Parliamentary Secretary (L)

  28,688

  30,647

  6·83

  Attorney General

  36,357

  36,679

  0·89

  53,268

  54,827

  2·93

  Solicitor General

  29,637

  29,959

  1·09

  46,548

  48,107

  3·35

  Lord Advocate

  40,508

  42,067

  3·85

  Solicitor-General for Scotland

  34,956

  36,515

  4·46

  256
  govern the allocation of money within a given total and the making of artistic judgments, and that a substantial amount of decision-making should continue to take place at the regional level. Existing arrangements in Scotland and Wales will not be affected by the review.

  The thinking that underlies the commissioning of the review and the scope that I wish it to cover are set out at greater length in a letter which I have today sent to Lord Rees-Mogg. I am placing a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Mr. Wilding will carry out wide consultations in the course of the review. Any person or body wishing to contribute views or comments is invited to write to him, care of the Office of Arts and Libraries, Horse Guards Road, London SW1P 3AL.

THE ARTS

  Public Libraries
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts (1) when he intends to publish his response to the submissions he has received on his Green Paper on the future financing of public libraries;

  (2) whether it is his intention to introduce legislation in this current session of Parliament implementing his proposals on the future financing of public libraries.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 7 December 1988]: I expect to make a statement shortly after the Christmas recess.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Ministers' Pay
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement about Ministers' pay.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The salaries of Ministers and other paid office holders were last increased from 1 January 1988 under the terms of the Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1987, and will remain at these levels until they are changed by a new order. The Government have considered possible changes to ministerial salaries in the light of the increase in the salaries of Members of Parliament that will take place on 1 January 1989 according to the terms of the resolution of 21 July 1987. The Government propose a package of increases averaging 4½ per cent. This is set out in the following table. I have today laid the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1988 to implement these changes.
  257

  Current official salary

  January 1989 official salary

  Percentage increase

  Current total salary (including reduced Parliamentary salary of £16,911)

  Total January 1989 salary (including reduced Parliamentary salary of £18,148)

  Percentage increase

  £

  £

  £

  £

  House of Commons

  Leader of the Opposition

  31,237

  31,559

  1·03

  48,148

  49,707

  3·24

  Chief Whip

  28,267

  28,589

  1·14

  45,178

  46,737

  3·45

  Deputy Chief Whip

  23,887

  24,209

  1·35

  40,798

  42,357

  3·82

  Opposition Chief Whip

  23,887

  24,209

  1·35

  40,798

  42,357

  3·82

  Government Whips and Assistant Government Whips

  14,827

  15,349

  3·52

  31,738

  33,497

  5·54

  Assistant Opposition Whips

  14,827

  15,349

  3·52

  31,738

  33,497

  5·54

  Chairman of Ways and Means

  23,887

  24,209

  1·35

  40,798

  42,357

  3·82

  Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means

  20,877

  21,199

  1·54

  37,788

  39,347

  4·13

  House of Lords

  Chief Whip

  34,688

  37,047

  6·80

  Deputy Chief Whip

  28,688

  30,647

  6·83

  Government Whips

  25,618

  27,377

  6·87

  Opposition Leader

  28,688

  30,647

  6·83

  Opposition Chief Whip

  25,618

  27,377

  6·87

  Chairman of Committees

  34,688

  37,047

  6·80

  Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees

  31,578

  33,537

  6·20

  1 The Prime Minister has elected to receive the same salary as a Cabinet Minister in the House of Commons.

  Note: The Lord Chancellor's salary is governed by the Lord Chancellor's Salary Order 1988 and is not affected by this Order. (He receives £87,250 effective from 1 October 1988).

  Theft
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many articles have been reported stolen from the Palace of Westminster during the last 12 months; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Wakeham
  There have been 40 cases of theft within the Palace of Westminster reported to the police in the last 12 months.

  Of these 40 reported, three cases were subsequently classified as "no crime" in that the property mentioned had either been recovered by the losers or found by members of staff. The details of the 37 remaining cases are:

  After shave

  Wallet and contents

  Wine

  Chocolates

  Cash

  Wrist watch

  Cheque books

  Food

  Cap

  File and contents

  Cigarette lighter

  Cordless telephone

  Shopping bag

  Print

  Radio/Recorder

  Gents jacket

  Twenty (20) 13 amp plugs

  Cap

  3 half-cases of champagne

  Footwear

  Wallpaper

  Whisky

  Personal Radio

  Playback machine

  Credit and cheque cards

  Briefcase

  Cleaning fluid

  Umbrella

  Cigarettes

  Briefcase and contents

  Kettle

  258

  Items of shopping

  Camera

  Ladies jacket

  Books

  Correspondence

  Umbrella

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Professional Liability
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to announce the conclusions of his Department's study to establish the nature, scope, extent and implications of professional liability problems.

  Mr. Maude
  I expect the report of the studies of professional liability problems to be submitted to me in the spring.

  Restrictive Trade Practices
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to announce his conclusions of the review into restrictive trade practices policy.

  Mr. Maude
  In the first part of next year.

  British Overseas Trade Board
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what reductions in staff of the British Overseas Trade Board there have been in the past two years.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The staff allocations in the Department's overseas trade divisions will have increased from 770 on 1 April to 775 on 1 April 1989.

  Fuzzy Logic
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the implications for the computer software industry of developments in fuzzy logic.

  Mr. North
  Fuzzy logic is potentially valuable in areas of computation which call for "human-like" reasoning based on qualitative or imprecise information, for example speech and vision systems, expert systems technology and database interrogation. Many of the developments are still in their infancy, though a few are now maturing in the expert system and database field. Such concepts can complement other advanced tools and methods to enable the computer software industry to develop novel and powerful applications. I am sure that the industry will take advantage of these opportunities as they present themselves.

  Financial Services Industry
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what specialist training is given to those officers of his Department who are responsible for the monitoring of the financial services industry.

  Mr. Maude
  The effect of the Financial Services Act is that monitoring of the financial services industry is a matter for the Securities and Investments Board and the bodies recognised by it. Questions as to the training of officers of those bodies are for the bodies themselves.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has concerning the training and qualifications of the officers and personnel of FIMBRA and other self-regulatory organisations responsible for vetting membership applications for FIMBRA and those other organisations.

  Mr. Maude
  This is a matter for FIMBRA and the Securities and Investments Board.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what information he has concerning the proportion of the income of FIMBRA that is allocated to the investigation of the background of those companies seeking membership;

  (2) if he will list all those companies or individuals who have been suspended by FIMBRA or any other self-regulatory organisation and indicate in each case the reason for that suspension.

  Mr. Maude
  This is a matter for FIMBRA.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how regularly he and the officers of his Department meet with FIMBRA and other self-regulatory organisations.

  Mr. Maude
  Frequently.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many representations his Department has received concerning the work of FIMBRA since its establishment.

  Mr. Maude
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make it his policy to require 260
  self-regulatory organisations automatically to inform his Department of applications which they receive for membership.

  Mr. Maude
  No.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any plans to review the self-regulatory aspects of the financial services legislation.

  Mr. Maude
  No.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on what date his Department first adopted the policy of automatically contacting NASDIM about applicants for licensing by his Department under past financial services legislation; and on what date NASDIM was first recognised as an acceptable alternative to licensing by his Department.

  Mr. Maude
  The Department maintained a list of bodies which it automatically consulted when it received an application for a licence to deal in securities under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958. NASDIM was added to this list at the beginning of 1985. The order declaring NASDIM a recognised association of dealers in securities under section 15 of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act was made on 28 November 1983 and came into effect on 31 December 1983.

  National Engineering Laboratory
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the main planning authority for development of the national engineering laboratory site at East Kilbride.

  Mr. Maude
  The East Kilbride district council is the statutory planning authority for the area in which the national engineering laboratory is situated.

  North Peckham Task Force
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will specify the feasibility studies undertaken by the north Peckham task force; how much each cost; and what was the outcome of each study.

  Mr. Newton
  Since 30 November 1988, out of a total of 95 projects approved at a cost to the task force of £2,570,113, the following were undertaken as feasibility studies:

  Technobus
  £6,250 was paid to South Bank polytechnic for research into the cost of setting up a bus which would deliver new technology training on local estates. The report was completed, and circulated to interested parties, but in view of the setting up and running costs (£120,000 in the first year) the task force decided not to proceed with the scheme.

  Peckham Industrial Association
  £3,500 was paid to this organisation to look into the viability of converting disused shipping containers into low cost portable units for community use. In the light of the feasibility study the task force took no further action.

  Sojourner Truth Youth Association (STYA)
  The task force has paid for two studies on behalf of this local black organisation. Community Land and Workspace Ltd. (CLAWS) were given £1,500 to prepare a study into the use of St. Luke's school as a multifunctional base. The results were passed to STYA to use as a basis to support their bid to Southwark council for funds to convert the school. In addition £9,941 went to First Step Associates to look at the

  261
  viability of a number of training proposals that STYA intend to run. Discussions with STYA are continuing with a view to developing the training aspects of the project.

  City Technology Centre
  £13,000 was given to Science City to look into the feasibility of setting up high tech workspace units in the task force area. The report was completed and passed to the task force, and the key proposal of seedcorn investment funding was adopted by the Peckham Enterprise centre, funded by the task force.

  URBED
  £27,370 was provided to this consultancy to develop a strategy to help reverse the decline of Rye lane as a shopping centre. The report was recently completed and the task force has provided funding to the Peckham Traders Association, one of whose key aims is to implement the URBED recommendations, working closely with the council and other bodies. In addition the task force is talking to URBED about further work.

  Southwark Architects
  £3,000 was paid to Southwark council to prepare a report into the development of a community training facility in the Gloucester grove estate on behalf of the Gloucester Grove Tenants Association. The report has been prepared, but detailed cosings are still being awaited, before exploring possible funding avenues.

  Forest of London
  £4,500 has been approved to this group to look into the feasibility of running a training project in arboriculture and landscaping. The task force awaits the final report.

  Southwark Chamber of Commerce
  £1,000 was paid to this group for research into the costs and possible funding sources of setting up a tourist information centre in Southwark. Subsequently, with help from the City action team, a tourist information centre was established in north Southwark.

  LENTA
  £27,000 was paid to LENTA to carry out a study into four sites in the Peckham area (The Spike, Melon road, the LEB sub-station, the Lomond grove business centre) with potential for use as managed workspace. Of these sites, the task force is still pursuing Melon road and the Spike in consultation with the council and other bodies; the Lomond grove centre became the Camberwell business centre under the direct control of LENTA; the task force decided not to take any further action on the LEB building.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for how long the north Peckham task force will be continuing with its work.

  Mr. Newton
  The task force continues to make good progress. In common with all Government task forces it is not intended to be permanent. There are however no plans at present for its closure.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the budget of expenditure on local projects by the north Peckham task force in(a) 1988–89, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1990–91 and (d) 1991–92.

  Mr. Newton
  The north Peckham task force in common with the other Government task forces does not have an individual budget. It does, however, have access to a common budget for all task forces which is £16 million for 1988–89 and has been set at £18·5 million for 1989–90. Figures for 1990–91 and 1991–92 will remain at similar levels.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will list in respect of the north Peckham 262
  task force (a) the local projects supported, (b) the amount of money committed to each project and (c) the amount of committed money spent on each project;

  (2) if he will state in respect of each project supported by the north Peckham task force the amount of money (a) committed and (b) spent by (i) the task force, (ii) other government sources, (iii) the London borough of Southwark, (iv) the Inner London Education Authority, (v) the Housing Corporation, (vi) English Heritage, (vii) any other public sources and (viii) any other private sources.

  Mr. Newton
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what were the objectives of the north Peckham task force when it was first set up; and whether those objectives have been changed during the course of its work.

  Mr. Newton
  The main objectives, which the north Peckham task force shares with the other 16 task forces, are to:—provide more jobs for local people by identifying and removing impediments to their recruitment by local employers, and by encouraging local enterprise development.
  —encourage and facilitate enterprise by local people through the provision of enterprise training, financial and managerial assistance.
  —improve the employability of local people, including those about to enter the labour market, by training programmes aimed at specific employment opportunities or identified gaps in the labour market.
  —support initiatives designed to improve the environment, the provision of community services and to reduce the level of crime where these can be linked to the reintegration of local people into local economic activity.

  The objectives have not been changed.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give the names and biographical details of each member of(a) the north Peckham task force community forum and (b) the north Peckham task force community forum working party.

  Mr. Newton
  These organisations are independent bodies which are not related to the north Peckham task force. The information requested is a matter for the organisations themselves.

  Wool
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he plans to continue the levy upon the wool textile industry for export promotion administered by the Wool Textile Export Corporation; how much has been raised by the levy in each of the last five years; what representations he has received about any proposal to abolish the levy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  It was announced in the White Paper "Releasing Enterprise" (Cm. 512) on 2 November that there would be consultation on the future of the wool textile industry (export promotion) levy. A consultation period lasting three months, ending on 31 January 1989, has now begun. Thereafter, Ministers will reach a decision on whether the levy should continue in its current statutory form and, if appropriate, lay proposals before Parliament. Representations have been received by
  263
  officials from the National Wool Textile Export Corporation. The following amounts have been raised by the levy in the last five financial years:

  Year ending 31 March

  £

  1984

  331,136

  1985

  346,406

  1986

  380,103

  1987

  405,045

  1988

  424,811

  British Steel
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster why certain households were excluded from the direct mailing shot giving details of the British Steel share offer.

  Mr. Atkins
  The direct mail shot for the British Steel offer was sent to existing shareholders in major United Kingdom companies. All members of the public were able to receive information by registering with the Share Information Office.

  Landfill
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps the Government are taking to promote and encourage landfill projects; and if he will make a statement.

  Navan Fort

  Armagh Planetrium

  Armagh County Museum

  St. Patrick's Cathedral

  St. Patrick's Roman Catholic Cathedral

  Armagh Christian Brothers

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Armstrong

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  Drelincourt Infants

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  Mount St. Catherine's Convent

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  St. Malachy's Boys'

  Yes

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  St. Patrick's

  Yes

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  No schools visited the sites of the battles of Benburb or the Diamond or the Regimental museum.

  Police
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the level of community policing in the West Winds estate, Newtownards; what are the proposals for the future of policing in this estate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Deployment of the RUC is a matter for the Chief Constable, but I understand that a neighbourhood constable is assigned to this estate who will continue to give attention to it, and that attention is also given by divisional mobile patrols.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the period each day that Comber Royal Ulster Constabulary station is operational; what proposals there are for the future of this Royal Ulster Constabulary station; and if he will make a statement on policing in Comber district.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The future of Comber RUC station is a matter for the Chief Constable. I understand that the
  264
  Mr. Trippier
  I have been asked to reply because my Department is responsible for policy on the reclamation and reuse of derelict and vacant land in England.

  Urban development corporations have been established to take concerted action in some of the areas worst affected by vacancy and dereliction. City grant can support private sector reclamation in the inner cities. Derelict land grant is available to the private sector outside the inner cities and to local authorities throughout England. Local authorities' inner area programmes, supported by urban programme grants, also make a contribution to reclamation in the inner cities. Together, these four regimes are expected to spend some £200 million on reclamation projects in the current financial year.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  School Visits
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which of the primary schools in the city of Armagh organised visits to the following locations during the past academic year(a) site of the battle of Benburb, (b) site of the battle of the Diamond, (c) Navan fort, (d) Armagh planetarium, (e) county museum, The Mall, Armagh, (f) Regimental museum, College hill, Armagh, (g) St. Patrick's cathedral, Armagh and (h) St. Patrick's Roman Catholic cathedral, Armagh.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows:

  station is open to the public from 9 am to 11 am and from 5 pm to 7 pm each day, and that attention is also given to the Comber area by divisional mobile patrols.

  Short Brothers plc
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate the likely effects of the proposed privatisation of Shorts on the company's FJX short-haul jet project; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  The decision on whether or not to proceed with the development of the FJX will be a matter for the purchaser of the company. There is not yet enough information available from the company on the FJX project for decisions to be made. The future of the project will be decided within the context of privatisation.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the Department of Health and Social Services intends to issue guidance to doctors in Northern Ireland on the treatment of myalgic encephalomyelitis; and if he will make a statement.
  265
  Mr. Needham
  No. It is not the Department's practice to issue directions on clinical practice to doctors.

  Floods
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what sums of public money were expended on repairs to Housing Executive dwellings which were needed as a result of damage caused by the floods of October 1987.

  Mr. Needham
  This is a matter for the chairman of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive who has advised me that approximately £315,000 was spent on repairs to Executive dwellings, largely in Strabane and Omagh.

  Rathlin Island
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether consideration has been given to the possibility of a joint electricity and telephone cable link between Rathlin island and the mainland; and what conclusions have been reached.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 7 December 1988]: No. I understand that such a link would not be practicable; amongst other reasons, the electricity cable would be likely to cause interference to any telephone cable laid in close proximity.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has received a report of the results of Northern Ireland Electricity's survey regarding the possible supply of mains electricity to Rathlin island; and what further discussions he has had with Northern Ireland Electricity regarding the implications of the results.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 7 December 1988]: No. This is a matter in the first instance for consideration by the board of Northern Ireland Electricity. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to a question by the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) on 7 December 1988, at column 195.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on what consideration is being given to funding a scheme to provide Rathlin island with mains electricity; and whether such consideration includes the possibility of European regional fund assistance.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 7 December 1988]: Various methods of providing Rathlin island with a mains supply are currently being examined by Northern Ireland Electricity. Consideration of the economic viability of these will take account of the possibility of European regional development fund assistance.

PRIME MINISTER

  Security Services
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she has any plans to bring forward legislation to put MI6, military intelligence and other security services other than MI5, on a statutory footing.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have no plans to introduce further legislation covering the security and intelligence services.

  Vice-President (European Commission)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister why and in what particular respects considerable experience of Cabinet Office forms has been a factor in the nomination for vice-president of the European Commission.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 1 December 1988 at column 345.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the implications for parliamentary sovereignty of the decision of the European Court of Justice to hear cases on the legality of the United Kingdom's Sunday trading laws; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  "The Green Gauntlet"
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister what response she plans to make to the 30 point plan for environmental improvement in the United Kingdom set out in "The Green Gauntlet" document launched collectively by the Worldwide Fund for Nature, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace on 20 November.

  The Prime Minister
  We shall consider the views expressed in "The Green Gauntlet" alongside those of other interests as we take forward our policies of safeguarding the environment for those who come after us.

  Engagements
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 December.

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 December.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 December.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 December.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 December.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 December.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 December.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 December.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 December.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 December.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 December.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 December.
  267
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 December.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 December.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 December.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 December.

  The Prime Minister
  The Soviet ambassador called on me to deliver a message from President Gorbachev this morning. Later I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, and will be addressing the annual meeting of the Per Cent Club.

  Advisers
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if, pursuant to her reply of 1 December,Official Report, columns 345-48, she will state the current salary or, where appropriate, expenses of each of the full and part-time advisers attached to her office.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave the hon. Member on 1 December 1988 at column 347.

  Foreign Visits
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) pursuant to her reply of 1 December,Official Report, column 347, which of her visits abroad in the current year still have open accounts because payments are awaited from media organisations for the cost of their representatives travelling with her on official transport;

  (2) pursuant to her reply of 1 December, Official Report, column 347, which of her visits abroad still await the closure of accounts.

  The Prime Minister
  For practical reasons, accounts relating to my visits overseas remain open for a reasonable length of time. This is because delays in receiving bills or claims or minor queries about the details of transactions, make it impractical to close these accounts too soon.

  Downing Street (Furnishings and Decoration)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister, what, pursuant to her answer of 1 December,Official Report, column 347, would be the cost of providing an answer to the question asking her to provide an analysis of the £213,318 spent from public funds in 1988–89 to date on furnishings and decoration in No. 10 Downing street.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 1 December 1988 at column 347.

  Official Gifts
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister how much has been expended from public funds for the provision of official gifts by her office in each year since 1979–80.

  The Prime Minister
  Information before 1 April 1983 is not available except at disproportionate cost. Since 1 April 1983 the following amounts have been spent on official gifts.268

  Financial year

  Amount £

  1983–84

  14,450

  1984–85

  16,678

  1985–86

  21,524

  1986–87

  10,176

  1987–88

  18,496

  11988–89

  11,192

  1 Actual to date.

  Policy Unit
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister how many staff are employed in her policy unit; and how many were employed in 1979–80.

  The Prime Minister
  There are at present nine members of staff employed in my policy unit. In 1979–80 there were two members of staff.

  Questions (Costs)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the current expenditure limit for replying to parliamentary written questions beyond which she maintains cost as being disproportionate.

  The Prime Minister
  Any parliamentary question likely to cost more than £250 is referred to the responsible Minister before significant resources are committed.

  Travel Restrictions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what restrictions on travel to(a) the Soviet Union and (b) Comecon Eastern bloc countries apply to retired Atomic Weapons Research Establishment, Aldermaston, staff;

  (2) what restrictions on emigration to (a) the Soviet Union and (b) other Comecon Eastern bloc countries apply to former government civil servants who worked at (i) the Ministry of Defence, (ii) the Atomic Weapons Research Establishments, (iii) MI5 and (iv) Government communications headquarters at Cheltenham.

  The Prime Minister
  Certain retired staff from the Ministry of Defence, the Atomic Weapons Establishment and Government Communications Headquarters, and all retired members of the security service, are asked to seek the permission of their former employers before visiting these countries.

  Security Screening
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made in implementing the recommendation contained in the Security Commission's report on the case of Geoffrey Prime, Cmnd 8876, that there should be a pilot study to test the feasibility of polygraph security screening in the intelligence and security agencies; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The first phase of the pilot study included the examination of staff of the security service and of senior staff of the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). Following completion of that phase and before deciding on a starting date for the second phase, which was intended to cover the testing of a random sample of the staff of GCHQ, the Government
  269
  commissioned a review of the scientific literature relating to the validity of the polygraph. This was conducted by Dr. A. B. Levey, a senior psychologist in the Medical Research Council. Dr. Levey delivered his report, which was based on an examination of 372 professional and scientific papers from which 100 were selected for a more detailed analysis earlier this year. I am placing a copy in the Library.

  Dr. Levey's conclusion from the literature is that the polygraph is probably incapable of achieving a high level of accuracy and reliability when used for screening purposes and, moreover, that individuals trained in the use of counter-measures would have a good chance of escaping detection. Against this background the Government concluded that there would be no advantage in implementing the second phase of the pilot study, but before reaching a final decision, the Government felt it right to consult the Security Commission again.

  The Security Commission has considered Dr. Levey's report and has taken further evidence from the director general of the security service and the director of GCHQ. In the light of their evidence the Security Commission accept that there would, in present circumstances, be no point in continuing the study. The commission believes, however, that the possibility of introducing the polygraph should not be ruled out for all time. In the light of the Security Commission's comments, the Government have decided that, while scientific research on the validity of the polygraph should continue to be monitored, the pilot study should not proceed further.

ENVIRONMENT

  Owner-occupation
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homes in Derbyshire are privately owned; and by how many this figure has increased since 1983.

  Mr. Trippier
  There were 282,202 homes in private ownership as at 1 April 1988 according to housing investment programme returns submitted by Derbyshire district councils. This figure is about 24,000 more than that for 1983.

  Manchester Council for Voluntary Service
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations his Department has received from the Manchester Council for Voluntary Service; what reply is being sent; if any action is to be taken; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  A series of representations about rate reform has been received in recent months from the Manchester Council for Voluntary Service both direct and via the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). The latest letter from the council asks a number of detailed questions about the community charge and will be answered shortly.

  I have recently agreed to a request by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) for a meeting with representatives of Greater Manchester voluntary groups.

  Building Regulations
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the consultation process on building regulations parts F (ventilation) and L (conservation of fuel and power), including the timetable for publishing approved documents and bringing into force of any new regulations.

  Mr. Trippier
  A consultation paper setting out proposals for amending the requirements and guidance relating to parts F (ventilation) and L (conservation of fuel and power) of the building regulations was issued in July of this year. Comments have been received from over 100 organisations and individuals, and these are still being considered. The Building Regulations Advisory Committee will be consulted on the outcome early next year, but it is too early to say when a revised approved document is likely to be published or when any amendments to the regulations themselves are likely to be brought into operation.

  Polycarboxylates
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information his Department has on the use of polycarboxylates in detergents; and what studies have been carried out into the envionmental implications of their use.

  Mr. Ridley
  Polycarboxylates are used at very low levels, generally less than 2 per cent., in detergents. Studies on the environmental implications of their use have been carried out by the detergent industry. These studies compare the results of toxicological and environmental test data with potential or predicted environmental concentration. In addition, a review of their behaviour and use has been published by Imperial college.

  Fauna, Flora and Habitats
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why Her Majesty's Government expressed objections on 24 November to the proposal to introduce a new European Community directive to protect threatened fauna, flora and habitats.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  At the Environment Council in Brussels on 24 November, all member states unanimously rejected the rigid and bureaucratic directive that the Commission had proposed. There was general support for the United Kingdom's view that the Community could most usefully assist member states, where appropriate, to implement the relevant existing international conventions, particularly the Bern convention.

  East Thames-side Study
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why the comments invited from the London borough of Newham were excluded from the east Thames-side study published on 23 November.

  Mr. Trippier
  As not all of the boroughs concerned had submitted comments when the consultants' report was due to be printed, it was decided not to include an incomplete set in that report. However, we will take careful account of
  271
  submissions from Newham and other boroughs, along with the consultants' report, as we consider the findings of the study.

  Rented Housing
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to encourage the independent rented sector, other than registered housing associations, to make adequate provision for a continuation of the principles of mobility as embraced in the national mobility scheme.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Housing Act 1988 should increase the supply of private rented accommodation, and this will improve job mobility. The principles of the tenants' guarantee as they relate to mobility will apply to all landlords approved under tenants' choice and for large-scale voluntary transfers of public sector housing.

  Defective Dwellings
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what estimate he has of the number of households with properties affected by mundic-type concrete block;

  (2) what estimate his Department has of the value of properties affected by being built of mundic-type concrete block;

  (3) what estimate he has, by county, of the number of properties suffering from deterioration or potential deterioration as a result of being built from mundic-type concrete block.

  Mr. Trippier
  Virtually all mundic block properties appear to have been built within the private sector, and there are therefore no reliable statistics on the numbers and values involved.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what research his Department is carrying out into the numerical extent of the problem of properties built with mundic-type concrete block;

  (2) what research his Department is carrying out into geographical extent of the problem of properties built with mundic-type concrete block;

  (3) what research his Department is carrying out into possible cures to the problem of properties afflicted with decaying mundic-type concrete block; and what is the status of that research.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Building Research Establishment has carried out research into the caues of mundic block failure within its continuing overall work on the behaviour of concrete aggregates. We have no plans to commission specific research on numbers and location, but I understand that private lending institutions are considering commissioning research into appropriate tests; this could lead to the development of remedial treatments for affected properties.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what financial assistance is available to the owners of properties with problems caused by mundic-type concrete blocks; and what changes he is proposing.

  Mr. Trippier
  At present, some owners of mundic block houses may be eligible for discretionary improvement 272
  grants. However, we intend to bring forward proposals in the next housing Bill to streamline the grants system; this may bring more owners within the scope of grant aid for repairs, subject to their particular circumstances.

  Rates
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the amount in cash terms, by which he estimates Leeds city council will have to spend below the Government's grant-related expenditure allocation level in 1989–90 in order to produce a rate increase in line with inflation, based on the information contained in the rate support grant consultation paper for 1989–90 issued on 11 November.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is estimated that if Leeds city council uses the same amount of balances as in 1988–89, a 5 per cent. increase would finance expenditure about £13 million below its GRE.

  Rating Reform
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library the papers produced for the following groups of officials and local authority association representatives(a) the new systems working group, (b) the rates working party, (c) the community charge working group, (d) the community charge implementation sub-group and (e) the capital programmes working party.

  Mr. Ridley
  I am placing in the Library copies of the papers circulated for the most recent meetings of these working groups and working parties.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he proposes to meet the loss of £10 million income from the introduction of the uniform business rate in Nottingham.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  If the uniform business rate had been introduced in 1988–89, business in Nottingham would have benefited from a 15 per cent. reduction in rates, and some £10 million less would have been raised locally from business rates. This does not necessarily mean that the local authorities would have been any worse off. Broadly speaking, provided that a local authority is spending sensibly, its total income from business rates and grant combined should be no less under the uniform business rate than under the present system.

  Local Government Finance
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a summary of the responses to "Capital Expenditure and Finance: A Consultation Paper."

  Mr. Ridley
  No. A list of those responses which respondents have agreed can be released is being placed in the Library of the House. Copies of those responses can be obtained through the Library.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what responses he received to "Capital Expenditure and Finance: A Consultation Paper", from financial institutions; what points they made; and whether he responded to them.
  273
  Mr. Ridley
  Certain brokers, banks, and market makers asked that local authorities should be permitted to place surplus funds in a wider range of investments than was proposed in the consultation paper. Receipt of their representations has been acknowledged.

  Housing
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total stock of dwellings for England and Wales by tenure expressed by local authority area.

  Mr. Trippier
  Local authorities in England report the number of dwellings by sector of ownership in their annual Housing Investment Programme returns. The latest information, for 1 April 1988, is contained in column A11 (local authority), Al2 (housing association), A13 (other public sector) and Al4 (private sector) of the "1988 HIP1 All Items Print", which is in the Library. For corresponding information about Welsh authorities I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  The 1981 census provides the most recent information, by local authority areas, of the split of households in private sector dwellings between owner-occupiers and renters. This information is shown in table 17 of "Census 1981, Key Statistics for local authorities, Great Britain", also in the Library.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the total number of local authority dwellings in England and Wales expressed by house type; (2) what has been the average weekly unrebated local authority rent in England and Wales for the financial years 1979–80 to 1989–90, expressed by local authority area.

  Mr. Trippier
  Average weekly unrebated local authority rents at 1 April and of local authority dwellings by type are published in an annual survey by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. Copies of the latest edition "Housing Rent Statistics at April 1988" and those for earlier years are in the Library.

  Crown Suppliers
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further progress has been made towards the privatisation of the Crown Suppliers.

  Mr. Chope
  As a step towards privatisation, I have authorised Crown Suppliers to commence selling to the private sector. This activity will be controlled in accordance with a business plan which will provide for sales and costs to be monitored by Ministers with the aim of ensuring that there is no cross-subsidisation of the sales to the private sector. The arrangement will enable Crown Suppliers to test its ability to trade with the private sector, which will be a feature of privatisation.

  In addition, I have received a report by Coopers and Lybrand on the organisation of Crown Suppliers during its move towards privatisation. The report recommends that there should be three divisions operating as discrete businesses: product supply and services, a transport division and a buying agency. I am considering these recommendations which are aimed at putting the Crown Suppliers' operations on to a more commercial footing in preparation for its move into the private sector.

  Housing Investment Programmes
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will make the allocations to local authorities in England for their housing investment programmes in 1989–90.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend announced on 1 November 1988 that gross provision for capital expenditure by local authorities on housing in 1989–90 will be £3,303–£395 million (13·5 per cent.) higher than previous plans. This is the fourth successive year in which it has been possible to increase provision, thanks to the continuing success of the right to buy policy. Through the receipts which this provides, local authorities have a growing source of spending power to supplement their capital borrowing.

  The gross expenditure provision allows for a total housing investment programme (HIP) allocation of £920 million. This represents new borrowing consents for local authorities. Each housing authority is today being informed of its initial HIP allocation for 1989–90. Copies of the letters to local authorities and the schedule of initial allocations have been placed in the Library and the Vote Office.

  The local authority associations have been consulted about the distribution of HIP allocations. After considering their comments, and bearing in mind his obligation to make allocations in relation to need, my right hon. Friend has decided to make the distribution on the following basis:
  £873·5 million is available for main HIP allocations. Every authority will receive at least 75 per cent. of its corresponding allocation for the current year.
  £11·5 million is available for the homes insulation scheme, of which £8 million is being distributed with the main HIP allocations; £2·5 million will be reserved for further allocations under the scheme in accordance with demand, and the remaining £1 million will be used to defray local authorities' administrative costs.
  £20 million is available for the private sector area renewal initiative. The 29 authorities receiving allocations are being informed today of the details.
  £15 million is being reserved for additional allocations at a later date to authorities which face particular difficulties in meeting their obligations under the housing defects legislation.

  Only the initial allocations are being made today. The letters being sent to local housing authorities describe the procedure under which they can apply for additional allocations.

  Tenants' Choice
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations are proposed with interested parties as part of the implementation work on tenants' choice.

  Mr. Trippier
  When the Housing Act was in Parliament the Government undertook to invite views on how tenants should be consulted and vote on a tenants' choice application, and on the terms on which flats should be leased back to a public sector body after any transfer. The Department has now issued two consultation papers, which set out our proposals on these matters. They are being circulated to interested parties with a request for comments by 20 January 1989. Copies are available in the Library.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what estimate he has of the carbon dioxide emissions resulting from energy used in domestic buildings, from(a) coal, gas, electricity and oil sources, and (b) space heating, lighting, water heating, fridges/ freezers, washing machines and other electrical appliances;

  (2) what research he has commissioned or he intends to commission on the potential of energy efficiency measures in the housing stock for reducing carbon dioxide emissions contributing to the greenhouse effect; and if he will make it his policy to summarise the results of such research and make copies available in the Library.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Warren Spring laboratory and the Building Research Establishment have made preliminary estimates of the carbon dioxide emissions resulting from energy use in domestic buildings in 1987 as follows:

  Millions of tonnes CO2

  (a) by fuel delivered to households: (WSL)

  Coaland other solid fuels

  25

  Natural gas

  55

  Electricity (including all forms of generation)

  88

  Oil

  6

  Total

  174

  (b) Percentage break down by end use: (BRE)

  Per cent.

  Space heating

  45

  Lighting

  4

  Water heating

  21

  Fridges/freezers

  9

  Washing machines

  2

  All other appliances (including cookers)

  19

  Total

  100

  The Department is currently considering how further studies of domestic efficiency and its carbon dioxide emission reduction potential can best be carried out. Where appropriate, results of such work will be made available in the Library of the House.

  Water Companies (Foreign Interests)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will be seeking emergency legislation to stop foreign companies mounting take-over bids for British water companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No, European Community law does not allow discrimination against investment by nationals of other community members. Competition and merger law applies to all takeovers where there is a threat to the public interest.

  River Pollution
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will instigate legislation similar to the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act 1951 in respect of the River Don and similar rivers affected by pollution caused by poisonous effluents coming from abandoned mines; and if he will make a statement.
  276
  Mr. Moynihan
  I am aware of the difficulties caused by discharges from abandoned mines, particularly from long abandoned workings. The costs of dealing with discharges can be considerable and in many cases it would be unreasonable to make the present landowners liable. Making such discharges an offence along the lines of the 1951 Act would not solve the problem of liability.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many miles of Yorkshire's prime game and coarse fishing rivers have become unsuitable for fishing since 1979 due to river pollution; and if he will make a statement on the report by Yorkshire Water's scientific services department which show a sharp decline in catches due to heavily polluted water.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Yorkshire water authority reported that about 12 miles of river length providing satisfactory fisheries in 1979 are now considered as unsatisfactory because of the effects of pollution. Over the same period 14 miles of river length have improved. However, I understand that the recently reported declines in catches on the Wharfe, Nidd and Ouse are considered to be normal variations brought about by rainfall, river flow, temperature and disease cycles rather than the results of river pollution.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many times since the Control of Pollution Act 1974 has been implemented it has been tested in the courts in respect of breaches of river pollution; and if he will list such occasions in date order.

  Mr. Moynihan
  This information is not held by the Department. However, the new National Rivers Authority will in future enforce water pollution controls on a national and more consistent basis and information of this nature should then be more readily available.

  Water Authorities
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on the recommendations in the Environment Select Committee Report concerning the introduction of new prohibitive powers enabling water authorities or other independent bodies to stop dischargers releasing effluent and to revise effluent permits without financial penalty.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Water Bill will empower my right hon. Friend to direct the National Rivers Authority to revoke or modify particular discharge consents with immediate effect, where this is necessary for the protection of public health or of flora or fauna dependent on the aquatic environment. Compensation would arise in those circumstances only where the authority in granting the consent could reasonably have been expected to foresee the threat to public health or the aquatic environment.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will(a) list all the local authorities which, under present legislation, have lost lands given to the present water authorities, (b) indicate the location and size of such land and (c) list the cases in which local authorities received proper and direct compensation for that loss of land.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 5 December 1988]: Information is not available in the form requested on land

  277
  transferred from local authorities to water authorities in the 1974 reorganisation. The local authorities concerned, or their successors, were relieved of the debt liabilities associated with the land transferred.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what amount of income in cash terms each water authority in England and Wales raised from land drainage precepts, direct charges for abstraction and impoundment licences, fishing rod licences and navigation licences in 1987–88, broken down by region.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 5 December 1988]: information on land drainage precepts and charges for abstractions is shown in the annual reports and accounts of the water authorities laid before Parliament each year and available in the Library. This information is brought together in Waterfacts, published annually by the Water Authorities Association and also available in the Library. The remaining information requested by the hon. Member is not available centrally.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he possesses concerning the asset value of all property, plant, including sewers, and machinery relating to disposal of used water currently owned by regional water authorities; and what is the basis of valuation.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 7 December 1988]: Analyses by service of the net asset value of water authorities' tangible fixed assets are set out in the historic cost and current cost sections of the authorities' published annual accounts. The basis of the figures is explained in notes to the accounts.

  Business Property (Revaluation)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's assessment of the impact of the revaluation of business property in 1990(a) upon business in Nottingham and (b) upon the uniform business rate.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We do not yet have sufficiently detailed forecasts of the likely effects of the revaluation on business property to be able to predict the effect in Nottingham. We would expect businesses in Nottingham to share in the benefit of reduced rate bills which businesses in the North and midlands generally will enjoy as a result of revaluation and the introduction of a uniform business rate.

  The uniform business rate will be set at the level necessary to raise nationally broadly the same amount in rates in 1990–91, in real terms, as is raised in 1989–90. So whatever the overall increase in rateable values on revaluation, the uniform business rate will be reduced proportionately.

  Disabled Persons (Staff)
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of his Department's staff are classed as disabled.

  Mr. Ridley
  As at 1 December 1988, the percentage of staff classed as disabled was 1·50 per cent., including 1·27 per cent. registered disabled persons.

  Death in Service
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the current maximum death-inservice benefit under local government superannuation schemes; if he has any plans to increase the maximum benefit payable; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he has any plans to remove the 20 years pensionable service qualification for the maximum death-in-service benefit under local government super-annuation schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The grant payable to the personal representatives of an employee who dies in service is one year's salary or three-eightieths of his pensionable remuneration multiplied by the length of his pensionable service, whichever is the greater. We have no plans to increase these benefits without an increase in the contributions payable by employees.

  Planning Decisions
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he collects statistics on the length of time taken by London borough local authorities to reach planning decisions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department collects and publishes quarterly statistics on development control performance of local planning authorities in England. The table shows the number of planning decisions issued by London borough councils in the first quarter of 1988 (the latest priod for which figures are available), and the percentage of those decisions issued within eight weeks and within 13 weeks of the application being received. Five authorities failed to provide the relevant information. The Government believes that local planning authorities should be able to decide 80 per cent. of all planning applications within eight weeks.

  London boroughs: Planning decisions in the 1st quarter of 1988

  Planning authority

  Total decisions

  Percentage within eight weeks

  Percentage within thirteen weeks

  Barking and Dagenham

  196

  74

  90

  Barnet

  947

  39

  72

  Bexley

  568

  26

  78

  Brent

  641

  36

  62

  Bromley

  768

  75

  92

  Camden

  562

  17

  37

  City of London

  152

  35

  58

  City of Westminster

  1,458

  19

  35

  Croydon

  760

  28

  60

  Ealing

  648

  4

  9

  Enfield

  —

  —

  —

  Greenwich

  254

  57

  81

  Hackney

  224

  36

  58

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,083

  33

  55

  Haringey

  —

  —

  —

  Harrow

  533

  46

  77

  Havering

  605

  33

  59

  Hillingdon

  599

  27

  50

  Hounslow

  462

  56

  82

  Islington

  322

  25

  39

  Kensington and Chelsea

  593

  51

  78

  Kingston upon Thames

  455

  33

  62

  Lambeth

  357

  30

  47

  Lewisham

  —

  —

  —

  Merton

  328

  54

  86

  Newham

  449

  39

  59

  Redbridge

  606

  31

  57

  279

  Planning authority

  Total decisions

  Percentage within eight weeks

  Percentage within thirteen weeks

  Richmond upon Thames

  855

  67

  78

  Southwark

  369

  46

  69

  Sutton

  —

  —

  —

  Tower Hamlets

  331

  18

  53

  Waltham Forest

  —

  —

  —

  Wandsworth

  542

  20

  62

  Conferences (EC)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the European Economic Community environment conferences held at ministerial level since the date on which he became Secretary of State; and if he will list those Ministers who have attended each one to represent Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Ridley
  Since I became Secretary of State for the Environment, the United Kingdom has been represented at European Community meetings of Environment Ministers as follows:

  1986

  12 June

  Environment Council

  The Hon. William Waldegrave

  24 November

  Environment Council

  The Hon. William Waldegrave (United Kingdom Presidency)

  Lord Skelmersdale (United Kingdom delegation)

  1987

  19-20 March

  Environment Council

  The Hon. William Waldegrave

  21 May

  Environment Council

  The Hon. William Waldegrave

  21 July

  Environment Council

  Lord Belstead

  3 December

  Environment Council

  Lord Belstead

  1988

  26-27 February

  Informal Council

  The Earl of Caithness

  21 March

  Environment Council

  The Earl of Caithness

  16 June

  Environment Council

  The Earl of Caithness

  28 June

  Environment Council

  Mr. Colin Moynihan

  1-2 October

  Informal Council

  The Earl of Caithness

  24 November

  Environment Council

  The Earl of Caithness

  The United Kingdom is among a small minority of member states to have been represented at Ministerial level at all these meetings.

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how his proposals for water privatisation 280
  will (a) reinforce, (b) amend or (c) suppress present controls for the protection of water authority lands (i) of outstanding natural beauty, (ii) serving urban or rural communities as spaces of recreation or environmental value and (iii) declared national parks.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 5 December 1988]: Clause 7 of the Bill would carry forward the present conservation and recreation duties of the water authorities and apply them with certain amendments and extensions to water and sewerage undertakers, the National Rivers Authority and internal drainage boards. The principle change is to impose on the authority a wider duty than currently applies to water authorities, to promote conservation and the recreational use of all inland waters and associated lands.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what financial compensation will be given to local authorities under his proposals for water privatisation in the case that the future water companies sell land which was originally owned by such local authorities which subsequent legislation gave to water authorities without any compensation.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 5 December 1988]: None, because none is due. The regional water authorities took on the debt liabilities associated with the local authority assets transferred to them in 1974.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what specific(a) local authorities, (b) rural and urban community organisations, (c) consumer associations and (d) industry and business organisations he consulted prior to deciding that water privatisation should be carried out.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 5 December 1988]: The White Paper proposals and consultation paper on the National Rivers Authority have been widely publicised. The opportunity to comment has not been confined to a specific list of organisations.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the amount of financial assistance which will be lost to regions from the European regional development fund following the privatisation of the water industry.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 6 December 1988]: The EC Commission agreed last year to continue to consider applications for aid from the European regional development fund in respect of investments in infrastructure by privatised bodies in the United Kingdom.

  National Rivers Authority
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what cash amount it is assumed that the National Rivers Authority would generate itself through its income generation powers for each of the years 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92 in anticipating grant in aid payments to the National Rivers Authority of £40 million, £71 million and £65 million for each of those years, respectively.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 5 December 1988]: The assumptions about grant-in-aid for these years are based on financial projections which anticipate that the National

  281
  Rivers Authority's income from direct charges will be £32·0 million in 1989–90, £58·0 million in 1990–91 and £73·0 million in 1991–92. It is assumed that the increased income in 1991–92 will be generated from the provision in the Water Bill to enable the NRA to charge dischargers the costs of administering water pollution control and enforcement. The projections do not take into account income or expenditure relating to the NRA's land drainage work, which is funded by a combination of capital grants, for which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food takes public expenditure provision, and precepts on local authorities.

  Cumbria (Coastline)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made towards the full implementation of the European Economic Community directive on the quality of bathing water along the coastline of Cumbria.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 5 December 1988]: There are 16 identified bathing waters in Cumbria, many of which already meet the directive's standards. The North West water authority plans to bring the remaining waters up to the EEC standard by 1995. Work on this task is in hand.

  Water Meters
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether Government funding will be made available to meet the costs of the installation and provision of water meters in domestic property in full or in part.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 6 December 1988]: Whether to adopt metering for domestic water customers after privatisation will be a matter for each water undertaker to decide. Apart from the limited contributions to the present programme of metering trials, there will be no Government funding of the costs of metering.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether customers will be expected to pay the costs of the provision and installation of water meters in domestic households following water industry privatisation.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 6 December 1988]: The Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Act requires the cost of installing meters compulsorily to be met by the water undertaker. The cost is therefore recovered from customers as a whole, with two exceptions. Customers who opt under the present voluntary scheme to pay by measure will be expected to pay for a meter and its installation. After 1 April 1989, water undertakers will be able to require the developers of newly built or converted domestic properties to pay for, or install, a meter as a condition of connecting a supply.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the position with regard to the inspection provisions of water metering and weights and measures legislation following the installation of water meters in domestic property.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 6 December 1988]: Regulations made under the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Act 1988 enable householders, on the
  282
  payment of a fee, to ask their water undertaker to test the accuracy of the meter. The fee will be returned if the meter is found to be inaccurate. The test would be carried out in accordance with weights and measures regulations. Alternatively, householders can ask for a test by a local authority weights and measures inspector.

  Land Development
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what restrictions he has received during 1988 about the drawing up of covenants restricting development on open land; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 6 December 1988]: Section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 permits the making of agreements between the local planning authority and any person with an interest in the land for the purpose of restricting or regulating the development or use of land. My right hon. Friend has received representations that such agreements are sometimes required where they are not necessary for the development to proceed, and the Government are considering issuing further policy guidance to curtail abuse of these powers.

  Sewers
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies he has made of areas where urban sewers and drains are the property of private companies; and what conclusions he reached in respect of each such study.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 7 December 1988]: None.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Rape (Sentencing)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many appeals against the length of sentencing in rape cases have been made since July 1988.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information for 1988 is not yet available, but 96 persons appealed in 1987 against the sentence given to them for a rape offence.

  Prisons (Psychiatric Patients)
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) at the latest date for which statistics are available, what proportion of persons detained in Her Majesty's prisons had previously been patients in either psychiatric hospitals or pyschiatric wards; and what were the corresponding figures for the same date in each of the past 10 years;

  (2) at the latest date for which statistics are available, what proportion of persons detained in Her Majesty's prisons had previously received psychiatric treatment; and what were the corresponding figures for each of the past 10 years;

  (3) at the latest date for which statistics are available, what proportion of persons detained in Her Majesty's prisons were either undergoing psychiatric treatment or had undergone such treatment in the course of their sentences.
  283
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The number of inmates who have received or are undergoing psychiatric treatment is not recorded centrally.

  Mortgage Fraud
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he will make it his policy to publish separate figures for mortgage fraud in the annual criminal statistics;

  (2) what statistics are currently available for the incidence of mortgage fraud in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. I have no plans to collect and publish more detailed figures on offences of fraud in "Criminal Statistics".

  Inter-city Trains (Radio Telephones)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make central funds available to British Rail to assist in resourcing the provision of radio telephones on inter-city trains as a means of crime prevention.

  Mr. John Patten
  I understand that British Rail is already installing telephones on inter-city trains as an extra service for passengers.

  Music (Drugs)
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to obtain regular reports from the chief officers of police as to whether all public places of entertainment and night clubs in particular are being surveyed to ensure that the music played does not offend the Obscene Publications Act or other legislation aimed at reducing both the supply of and the demand for drugs.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no plans to do so.

  Animals (Experiments)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the current project licences permiting cosmetic and toiletry experiments upon animals were granted prior to the implementation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None. Project licences were introduced by the 1986 Act.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many project licences have been granted for regulated procedures which involve the testing of cosmetic and toiletry preparations since the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 came into force; and how many of these applications were placed before the Animal Procedures Committee for consideration before being granted.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Six project licences have been granted, all of which received prior consideration by the APC.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for project licences 284
  for cosmetic experiments have been refused on the advice of the Animal Procedures Committee since 1 January 1987.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None; but following consideration by the APC, modifications have been made to some project licences.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many personal licences are subsisting under those project licences granted for cosmetic experiments since 1 January 1987.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  This information is not available centrally since personal licence holders are not generally restricted to working on a particular project.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider requiring the labelling of products to state whether or not they are tested on animals.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. The Home Secretary is responsible for the licensing of scientific procedures on living animals, but not for any requirements for substances to be tested on animals or for the labelling of substances which have been tested.

  Child Care
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to make police records available to voluntary organisations dealing with children who wish to check on potential employees.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We intend to establish before next summer pilot schemes for the disclosure of police information about those seeking to work with children in the voluntary sector.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the annual cost, for each year since 1987, of the public relations branch of the Metropolitan police.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that staffing and accommodation costs and spending on publicity and recruitment advertising by the directorate of public affairs was £4,555,000 for 1987–88. The estimate for 1988–89 is £5,321,000.

  Satellites (Crashes)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if any emergency plans are being prepared for the possibility of the Solar Maximum satellite crashing on(a) London or (b) elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. John Patten
  I understand that current assessments indicate that there is no risk of Solar Maximum, which is not nuclear powered, crashing on the United Kingdom and specific plans are not therefore being prepared.

  Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been brought
  285
  under regulation 61 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 and how many convictions obtained; and what steps he is taking to ensure the enforcement of this legislation.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Separate information is not collected centrally on court proceedings for offences under regulation 61, but is combined with a variety of other offences relating to vehicles in dangerous or defective condition. The available information is published annually in "Offences relating to motor vehicles, England and Wales, Supplementary tables" (table 5 of the issue for 1987, which will be published soon). Since 1 October 1986, the police have been able to issue fixed penalty notices for these offences as an alternative to prosecution. All forces now also operate vehicle defect rectification schemes by which drivers.can avoid prosecution for certain offences if they produce evidence that defective vehicles have been repaired or scrapped.

  Further information is given in Home Office statistical bulletin 32/88, table 13 of which suggests that in 1987 there was a large rise in the enforcement of vehicle defect offences generally, as a result of these new methods of enforcement.

  Lenient Sentences
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to issue a commencement order for section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to give the Attorney-General the power to refer lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We plan to bring section 36 into effect on 1 February.

  Royal Ordnance Factory, Burghfield
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what emergency services attended the Royal Ordnance factory, Burghfield, following the explosion on Friday 2 December; if any casualties were sustained amongst emergency personnel; and at what time outside emergency services arrived at Burghfield.

  Mr. John Patten
  I understand that the police and the fire brigade attended. No casualties were reported among emergency personnel. The police arrived at the incident at 06.20 hours and the fire brigade at 06.24 hours.

  Armley Prison
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long on average prisoners remanded to Armley remain in prison before being brought to trial.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Information is not available centrally on the average time spent on remand in individual establishments. The information available relates to the average time spent on remand in all prison service establishments by untried and convicted unsentenced prisoners and is published annually in "Prison Statistics, England and Wales" (tables 2(c) and 2(d) of the latest issue for 1986, Cm. 210, a copy of which is in the Library). The 1987 issue will be published shortly.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are in Armley prison as a result of not paying bills or fines.
  286
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 31 October 1988, the latest date for which information is readily available, there were 18 fine defaulters and no prisoners held for non-payment of debts in Leeds prison.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners there were in Armley prison on 1 December; how many were(a) in cells of their own and (b) in the hospital wing; and how many were on remand.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 1 December 1,291 prisoners were held in Her Majesty's prison, Leeds. Of these, 613 were untried and 107 had been convicted and awaited sentence. 33 prisoners were located in the hospital wing. On 13 November, the most recent date for which cell-occupancy figures are available, 62 prisoners were accommodated in cells of their own.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners in Armley prison go to education classes(a) every day or (b) every week.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The readily available information is as follows. It is planned that for 5-9 December there will be an average of 182 education places available for prisoners per day, and 498 individual prisoners will attend education classes.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have died in Armley prison since January; and how many of those deaths have been classified as suicides by coroners' inquests.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Six inmates have died in Armley prison, Leeds, since January. Of these deaths, three have been confirmed as suicide by coroners' inquests, and two as deaths by natural causes. One inquest has yet to take place.

  Justices' Clerks
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the reponsibilities of a clerk to the justices for a petty sessional area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The principal reponsibilities are as set out in sections 28 and 29 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out the scale of salaries for a clerk to the justices for a petty sessional area(a) in London, (b) in the shire counties, and (c) in the metropolitan counties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The salary payable to a clerk to the justices outside inner London ranges from £16,005 (rising to £17,598 by increments) to £30,978 (rising to £34,638 by increments) according to the population of the petty sessions area concerned. In inner London the principal chief clerk has a salary of £35,370 and the chief clerks have an incremental salary scale of £27,819-£30,747. The above figures all exclude London weighting where payable. Increases in pay are now subject to arbitration.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the level of London weighting
  287
  allowance awarded to a clerk to the justices for a petty sessional area; if he has any plans to review present arrangements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The London weighting allowance payable to a clerk to the Justices is as follows:

  £

  (1) Magistrates courts service (excluding inner London)

  (i) Greater London

  792

  (ii) Inner Fringe

  357

  (iii) Outer Fringe

  243

  (2) Inner London Magistrates courts service

  1,500

  London weighting is under review as part of the current pay negotiations.

  Magistrates' Courts (Staff)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any proposals for the recruitment of additional staff in the magistrates' courts in order to deal with the growing backlog of cases; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  There is provision for 200 additional court posts in the next financial year, and we shall obviously have local operational difficulties in mind in considering applications for increases in complement. We shall keep the position under review in the light of the outcome of the arbitration on the current pay negotiations. We also hope to increase, through the provision of training, the number of staff from within the courts service qualified to act as court clerks.

  Terrorism
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is(a) the tonnage of explosives and (b) the number of firearms found as a ration of houses searched under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts 1974, 1976 and 1984 for each year from 1974 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information is not available and could not be obtained except at disproportionate cost.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what has been the total number of people(a) detained, (b) charged and (c) convicted under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act in each year since 1974; and if he will provide a breakdown of the figures between men and women;

  (2) if he will provide a breakdown of the people arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act for each year since 1974 (a) at ports; (b) at airports; (c) in their homes and (d) in other places; and if he will provide a breakdown of these figures between men and women detainees.

  Mr. Hurd
  The readily available information on those detained under the prevention of terrorism legislation in Great Britain is published quarterly in Home Office statistical bulletins which are placed in the Library; the latest, Issue 29/88, gives information on those detained up to the third quarter of 1988. Information on the outcome of charges following detention under this legislation is published in the end of year bulletins in this series; tables 288
  6 and 7 of Issue 11/88 give the figures for those detained over the period of the current legislation. Figures relating to earlier legislation can be obtained from corresponding earlier bulletins in this series.

  Extradition
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish in the Official Report the numbers of extradition requests made to the Republic of Ireland in each year since 1967, indicating how many of those requests were for crimes of a terrorist nature and how many requests were for other types of crime, and show for each year the number of those extradition requests which were granted for (a) crimes of a terrorist nature and (b) other types of crimes and how many were refused for each class of crime; if he will indicate for each of those years, and each class of crime, how many extradition requests and warrants were found by the Irish authorities and the Irish courts to be unacceptable; if he will also publish in the Official Report the same information for extradition requests made to the United Kingdom by the Republic of Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The readily available information on extradition requests between England and Wales and the Republic of Ireland is given in the following tables. This is based mainly on information provided by police forces. Requests involving terrorist offences are specified where known.

  Requests made by England and Wales for return of persons from the Republic of Ireland

  Requests made

  Requests granted

  Requests refused

  Requests not acted on for other reasons3

  1982

  41

  17

  1

  23

  1983

  31

  11

  —

  20

  1984

  29

  15

  —

  14

  1985

  23

  5

  —

  18

  1986

  112

  1

  11

  10

  1987

  5

  1

  2

  2

  1988

  27

  1

  —

  246

  Requests received in England and Wales for the return of persons to the Republic of Ireland

  Requests received

  Requests granted

  Requests refused

  Requests not acted on for other reasons3

  1982

  9

  7

  —

  2

  1983

  15

  11

  —

  4

  1984

  31

  24

  —

  7

  1985

  29

  18

  —

  11

  1986

  15

  5

  3

  7

  1987

  20

  14

  —

  6

  1988

  Not yet available

  1 includes 1 case involving terrorist offences

  2 includes 2 cases involving terrorist offences

  3 e.g. because the fugitive could not be traced

  4 some cases pending

  Parliamentary Constituencies
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Boundary Commission for England intends to conduct any further interim reviews of parliamentary constituencies.

  Mr. Hurd
  The commission has told me of its intention to conduct a review of the Buckingham and Milton Keynes county constituencies.

  Police and Criminal Evidence Act
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of people(a) detained, (b) charged and (c) convicted under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in each year since 1984 to the latest available date; and if he will provide a breakdown of the figures into men and women.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Most of the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 were implemented on 1 January 1986. Home Office statistical bulletins have been published regularly since then, the latest, Issue 14/88, giving figures for 1987. These bulletins cover the operation of those sections of the Act on which chief constables are required to publish statistics, ie stops and searches, road checks, detentions beyond 24 hours without charge and intimate searches.

  The only criminal offence created by the Act relates to the improper disclosure of information by a member, officer or servant of the Police Complaints Authority (section 98). There have been no convictions under this section.

  Information on all persons convicted, including separate figures for men and women, is published in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 1987" (Cm. 498) and in a companion set of five supplementary volumes. All the publications referred to are in the Library.

  Data Protection Act
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will publish the terms of reference of the interdepartmental group reviewing the workings of the Data Protection Act; to what extent the group is initially concentrating its efforts on reporting on registration requirements; and whether it is intended that the group shall recommend changes to strengthen data subjects rights or the registrar's powers under the Act.

  Mr. Renton
  The terms of reference of the interdepartmental review committee on the Data Protection Act 1984 are:"To review the Data Protection Act 1984 in the light of experience gained during its implementation, with particular reference to the impact on data users of the registration requirements; and to make recommendations."

  The committee will review the Act as a whole and will recommend such changes as it considers necessary on any aspect of the Act.

SCOTLAND

  Radioactivity
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the cost to date of analysing water,290
  vegetation, soil and food samples for radioactivity levels and of administering measures to control contaminated food and to compensate affected farming businesses, since the Chernobyl accident.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The total costs incurred by the Scottish Office are estimated to be in the region of £3·2 million comprising about £1 million for staff and associated administration costs, about £0·5 million in relation to analysis and monitoring and about £1·7 million for compensation to farmers in the restricted areas.

  National Council for Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has considered the responses to the consultative paper on whether the remit of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications should extend to Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I have decided that the advantages to be gained by individuals and employers in Scotland from the development of nationally recognised vocational standards can be achieved without extension of the remit of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications to Scotland at present. The Scottish Vocational Education Council (SCOTVEC) will continue to work closely with employers, examining bodies, and the training agency in the United Kingdom to ensure that its qualifications meet the needs of British as well as Scottish employers. I look forward to SCOTVEC continuing to maintain and develop its constructive relationship with the NCVQ, which I will keep under review.

  Teachers (Premature Retirement)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the total number of school-teachers, by age and by sex, who were granted premature retirement during the academic session 1987–88.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave her on Thursday 3 November which set out the available information.

  School Rolls
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the total number of school-pupils at the most recent available date in attendance at nursery, primary, secondary and special schools in each local education authority, giving the breakdown by region and by division.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The numbers of pupils in education authority schools in September 1987 are given in the table.

  Nursery

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special

  Borders

  400

  8,160

  6,330

  180

  Central

  2,510

  23,520

  18,380

  380

  Dumfries and Galloway

  440

  12,300

  9,800

  160

  Fife

  4,280

  30,550

  22,450

  630

  Grampian

  2,700

  43,040

  31,910

  1,000

  Highland

  620

  19,280

  14,350

  400

  Lothian

  8,020

  54,360

  41,190

  1,550

  Strathclyde

  17,730

  201,510

  153,290

  4,200

  Tayside

  2,400

  31,110

  24,000

  480

  291

  Nursery

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special

  Orkney

  90

  1,790

  1,340

  10

  Shetland

  110

  2,370

  1,660

  10

  Western Isles

  —

  2,930

  2,480

  30

  ALL SCOTLAND

  39,290

  430,920

  327,170

  9,020

  Argyll and Bute

  —

  5,720

  4,420

  90

  Ayr

  2,540

  33,440

  26,180

  490

  Dunbarton

  2,020

  30,320

  22,920

  450

  Glasgow (City)

  8,360

  54,760

  37,910

  1,790

  Lanark

  2,310

  46,360

  37,070

  840

  Renfrew

  2,510

  30,910

  24,790

  550

  PIEDA Report
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of producing the Planning, Industrial and Economic Development Advisers' report.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The cost of the PIEDA report was £20,597.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the Planning, Industrial and Economic Development Advisers' report.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No. My right hon. and learned Friend will not publish the PIEDA report. It is a confidential report prepared for Government.

  Generation Type as Percentage of Total Output (Based on Net Units sent out)

  North of Scotland Hydro Electric Board Area

  Per cent.

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Hydro

  79

  88

  82

  82

  53

  42

  24

  72

  57

  48

  Pumped Storage

  -3

  -3

  -1

  0

  -1

  -1

  -1

  -1

  1

  1

  Fossil

  7

  3

  7

  4

  42

  54

  68

  2

  24

  32

  Diesel

  9

  9

  8

  8

  4

  3

  2

  6

  4

  4

  Gas Turbine and Wind

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dounreay

  7

  2

  4

  5

  1

  2

  6

  20

  14

  14

  Sundry

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Total

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  South of Scotland Electricity Board Area

  Per cent.

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Coal and Slurry

  65·2

  69·2

  65·7

  66·6

  50·7

  48·2

  22·0

  53·1

  42·8

  52·0

  Heavy Fuel Oil

  11·9

  6·1

  1·1

  1·0

  —

  -0·1

  27·9

  0·1

  5·3

  —

  Nuclear1

  21·9

  23·4

  31·7

  31·2

  47·7

  50·5

  49·2

  45·5

  50·5

  46·4

  Hydro and Sundries

  1·0

  1·3

  1·5

  1·2

  1·6

  1·4

  0·9

  1·3

  1·4

  1·6

  Total

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  1Nuclear output includes Chapelcross Power Station owned and operated by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.

  Local Authority Rents
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the average weekly local authority rent in Scotland for each of the financial years 1979–80 to 1989–90, expressed as a percentage of average male manual earnings.

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

  Glasgow Western Infirmary
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans there are for the future of the accident and emergency service at the Glasgow Western Infirmary; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Greater Glasgow health board is currently conducting a strategic review of all accident and emergency services in Glasgow and has no plans to alter the level of accident and emergency services provided at Glasgow Western Infirmary. However, as a result of an earlier staffing review the senior medical staffing level has been strengthened. A full-time consultant in accident and emergency has taken up post and an appointment for a second full-time consultant has recently been made.

  Electricity
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the types of plants at each of the South of Scotland Electricity Board areas and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board areas and their respective output capacity each year since 1979, showing these figures in percentage terms of the overall output.

  Mr. Lang
  The information, provided by the Scottish electricity boards on the same basis as their annual reports and accounts for the years in question, is as follows:

  Finance Year

  Rent1 as a percentage of earnings2

  1979–80

  5·7

  1980–81

  5·8

  1981–82

  6·7

  1982–83

  7·3

  1983–84

  7·3

  1984–85

  7·3

  1985–86

  7·4

  1986–87

  7·8

  1987–88

  8·4

  1Average unrebated local authority rent per dwelling per week as at 30 September, based on local authorities' statistical returns to the

  293
  Scottish Development Department.

  2Average weekly earnings of full-time (male and female) adult employees in major production and transport industries, based on Department of Employment surveys. Separate figures for earnings of male adult employees are not available.

  Note:
  Average earnings figures are not available for 1988–89 or 1989–90.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the average weekly unrebated

  Average weekly unrebated local authority rent in Scotland at 30 September

  1979–80 £

  1980–81 £

  1981–82 £

  1982–83 £

  1983–84 £

  1984–85 £

  1985–86 £

  1986–87 £

  1987–88 £

  1988–89 £1

  Scotland

  4·92

  5·66

  7·69

  9·02

  9·86

  10·46

  11·55

  12·99

  14·58

  16·23

  Berwickshire

  5·87

  6·94

  8·91

  11·01

  11·55

  12·75

  13·77

  14·40

  15·34

  16·81

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  5·25

  5·89

  6·44

  10·15

  11·00

  13·22

  13·14

  13·14

  13·88

  14·47

  Roxburgh

  5·79

  6·83

  9·46

  11·38

  12·42

  13·43

  14·72

  16·38

  16·87

  18·23

  Tweeddale

  4·31

  6·07

  8·33

  10·51

  11·33

  11·28

  11·34

  12·69

  13·14

  14·10

  Clackmannan

  4·62

  5·33

  7·19

  9·33

  10·25

  11·21

  11·66

  12·86

  14·34

  16·32

  Falkirk

  3·95

  5·31

  6·68

  8·96

  10·17

  10·68

  11·61

  12·54

  13·89

  15·38

  Stirling

  4·39

  5·71

  6·88

  7·82

  9·28

  9·29

  11·55

  13·62

  15·07

  16·04

  Annandale and Eskdale

  5·30

  6·38

  8·55

  10·21

  11·68

  12·91

  13·85

  15·22

  16·49

  18·29

  Nithsdale

  3·83

  4·80

  7·11

  8·76

  9·60

  10·50

  11·48

  13·13

  13·86

  15·45

  Stewartry

  5·20

  6·57

  9·57

  11·92

  12·65

  13·96

  14·09

  15·45

  16·45

  18·08

  Wigtown

  4·88

  6·13

  8·53

  10·68

  11·99

  14·17

  15·79

  16·69

  16·70

  17·51

  Dunfermline

  4·79

  5·74

  8·47

  10·63

  11·66

  12·16

  12·15

  13·46

  14·70

  16·67

  Kirkcaldy

  4·64

  5·63

  8·08

  9·61

  10·45

  11·60

  12·60

  13·85

  15·32

  17·02

  North East Fife

  4·94

  6·93

  9·56

  11·26

  12·73

  12·69

  13·82

  15·87

  17·07

  17·02

  Aberdeen

  4·73

  5·62

  5·97

  6·96

  7·92

  8·89

  11·21

  12·55

  14·69

  16·02

  Banff and Buchan

  5·14

  5·46

  7·72

  9·96

  11·25

  12·43

  13·80

  14·98

  15·61

  17·13

  Gordon

  6·16

  6·68

  8·23

  10·17

  11·41

  11·91

  13·63

  14·91

  15·11

  16·41

  Kincardine and Deeside

  4·41

  5·35

  7·54

  9·46

  10·52

  11·80

  13·01

  13·85

  14·34

  14·70

  Moray

  5·34

  6·79

  7·76

  8·02

  10·35

  11·64

  13·58

  14·03

  15·66

  17·35

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  4·95

  6·54

  8·44

  9·88

  11·52

  12·56

  13·50

  15·35

  15·32

  16·90

  Caithness

  4·19

  5·02

  6·89

  8·41

  9·67

  11·75

  12·65

  13·69

  14·84

  16·48

  Inverness

  5·69

  6·37

  9·60

  9·80

  10·54

  11·28

  13·19

  14·02

  15·96

  18·01

  Lochaber

  4·43

  4·74

  8·23

  10·65

  11·36

  12·28

  12·98

  14·29

  16·03

  16·96

  Nairn

  4·84

  5·22

  7·50

  9·97

  11·23

  12·15

  13·53

  14·68

  15·79

  17·28

  Ross and Cromarty

  5·12

  6·27

  8·25

  9·75

  10·75

  11·99

  12·73

  14·73

  15·85

  17·46

  Skye and Lochalsh

  4·96

  7·02

  8·07

  10·41

  11·08

  13·02

  14·91

  17·13

  14·97

  17·45

  Sutherland

  5·56

  6·31

  8·72

  9·79

  10·76

  11·83

  12·80

  14·17

  14·43

  15·56

  East Lothian

  4·88

  5·70

  7·30

  8·55

  10·23

  11·10

  12·39

  13·36

  14·71

  16·16

  Edinburgh

  6·52

  7·63

  9·54

  11·04

  12·28

  13·53

  13·35

  13·39

  15·23

  17·10

  Midlothian

  4·76

  5·72

  7·19

  9·03

  9·90

  10·77

  11·83

  12·76

  13·71

  14·71

  West Lothian

  4·36

  5·29

  8·18

  9·76

  10·48

  10·98

  11·78

  12·63

  13·53

  14·85

  Argyll and Bute

  5·44

  6·87

  9·73

  11·84

  13·43

  14·61

  15·32

  15·31

  15·80

  18·14

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  5·49

  5·85

  8·85

  10·25

  10·87

  11·45

  12·17

  14·23

  16·58

  18·15

  Clydebank

  4·03

  5·43

  7·04

  8·52

  9·04

  10·04

  12·19

  15·04

  17·06

  19·29

  Clydesdale2

  4·59

  6·07

  7·51

  9·22

  9·69

  10·70

  12·15

  13·02

  13·85

  15·66

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  4·90

  6·32

  8·93

  10·13

  10·12

  10·61

  12·74

  14·75

  16·42

  18·11

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  4·02

  5·10

  7·46

  8·85

  9·89

  10·39

  11·11

  12·15

  13·61

  14·97

  Cunninghame

  5·17

  5·17

  7·14

  8·01

  8·84

  8·85

  8·85

  10·50

  13·01

  14·80

  Dumbarton

  4·02

  4·70

  7·49

  8·51

  8·56

  9·38

  9·38

  11·68

  14·60

  18·08

  East Kilbride

  4·63

  6·49

  8·34

  10·56

  11·43

  12·44

  13·49

  15·55

  16·53

  17·48

  Eastwood

  5·14

  6·06

  8·50

  9·96

  10·52

  11·02

  11·50

  11·94

  12·45

  13·74

  Glasgow

  5·33

  6·45

  8·39

  9·10

  9·61

  9·63

  10·65

  12·61

  14·63

  16·95

  Hamilton

  4·17

  4·86

  6·26

  8·28

  9·33

  10·03

  10·95

  12·80

  14·86

  15·93

  Inverclyde

  5·29

  5·93

  7·30

  7·81

  8·31

  9·08

  11·30

  12·40

  13·33

  14·36

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  4·39

  5·71

  7·96

  8·58

  9·08

  9·59

  10·59

  12·42

  13·85

  14·84

  Kyle and Carrick

  5·27

  5·30

  6·25

  8·59

  9·61

  10·42

  12·18

  13·37

  14·38

  15·57

  Monklands

  4·39

  5·23

  6·57

  8·34

  9·30

  9·30

  11·32

  13·68

  15·50

  16·93

  Motherwell

  4·36

  5·20

  7·40

  7·91

  8·91

  9·91

  11·27

  12·46

  14·10

  15·09

  Renfrew

  4·43

  5·34

  7·19

  8·10

  8·33

  8·81

  9·81

  11·50

  12·99

  14·11

  Strathkelvin

  4·34

  5·68

  8·54

  9·22

  9·69

  10·57

  11·62

  14·18

  15·31

  17·15

  Angus

  4·73

  5·12

  8·03

  9·05

  10·74

  11·70

  12·66

  13·77

  14·58

  14·73

  Dundee

  5·08

  5·91

  5·91

  7·26

  8·07

  8·80

  9·82

  11·63

  13·61

  16·18

  Perth and Kinross

  4·01

  5·19

  7·66

  10·54

  10·78

  10·77

  11·93

  12·93

  13·88

  14·67

  Orkney Islands

  5·65

  6·75

  7·93

  9·33

  10·12

  11·00

  13·16

  14·49

  15·99

  17·49

  Shetland Islands

  4·75

  5·60

  8·00

  10·43

  10·57

  10·52

  13·43

  14·97

  15·93

  17·40

  Western Isles

  5·32

  7·19

  9·48

  12·12

  13·04

  14·88

  15·47

  16·50

  17·52

  18·63

  1 1988–89 figures taken from Rating Review Estimates of Income and Expenditure published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.

  2 Prior to 1980 this was Lanark District.

  294
  local authority rent in Scotland for each of the financial years 1979–80 to 1989–90, expressed by local authority area.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table. Local authorities have yet to set their rent levels for 1989–90.

  Housing
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will produce figures for the total stock of dwellings for Scotland by tenure; and if he will express those figures by local authority area.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Estimates of the dwelling stock in Scotland by tenure are published quarterly in "Housing and Construction Statistics". The numbers of domestic subjects on the valuation roll by tenure for each local authority area in Scotland are published annually in "Rating Review: Estimates of Income and Expenditure Summary Volume" by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. Copies of both publications are available in the Library.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of local authority dwellings in Scotland, expressed by house type.

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

  Estimated local authority dwelling stock by house type, Scotland 1988

  Dwelling type

  Number of dwellings (thousand)

  House

  332

  Highrise flat

  54

  Tenement flat

  94

  Other flat/maisonette

  315

  Type not known

  32

  Total

  827

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much subsidy in terms of housing support grant and rate fund contribution has been paid and is estimated to be paid in respect of local authorities for each of the financial years 1979–80 to 1989–90, both in total, and expressed as a subsidy per dwelling for the total number of dwellings in local authority control and in respect of those authorities in receipt of subsidy.

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

  Financial year

  Total Subsidies £ million

  Subsidies per dwelling 1 £

  Subsidies per dwelling 2 £

  1979–80

  286·324

  320·50

  320·50

  1980–81

  307·603

  343·68

  343·68

  1981–82

  268·175

  300·21

  300·21

  1982–83

  229·341

  259·28

  264·02

  1983–84

  195·331

  223·80

  228·24

  1984–85

  206·230

  239·07

  243·79

  1985–86

  162·572

  180·08

  200·28

  1986–87

  120·777

  135·42

  151·29

  1987–88

  82·966

  102·96

  104·79

  1988–89

  76·588

  94·75

  99·13

  1989–903

  63·854

  82·45

  243·00

  Notes:

  1Calculated on the basis of the total number of dwellings held on local authority housing revenue accounts.

  2Calculated on the basis of the numbers of dwellings held on local authority housing revenue accounts to which subsidy credited during that year.

  3As estimated by the Scottish Development Department.

  Extradition
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report the numbers of extradition requests made to the Republic of Ireland in each year since 1967, indicating how many of those requests were for crimes of a terrorist nature and how many requests were for other types of crimes, and show for each year the number of those extradition requests which were (a) granted (b) refused for (i) crimes of a terrorist nature and (ii) other types of crimes and how many were refused for each class of crime; if he will also indicate for each of these years, and each class of crime, how many extradition requests and warrants were found by the Irish authorities and the Irish courts to be unacceptable; if he will also publish in the Official Report the same information for extradition requests made to the United Kingdom by the Republic of Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information in respect of requests made to the Republic of Ireland prior to 1987 is not available centrally and cannot be ascertained. However, it is known that between 1967 and 1987 two requests were made in respect of a person accused of crimes of a terrorist nature. In 1973 a request was refused following an appeal to the High Court in Dublin. A request made in 1984 is still outstanding after the failure of the accused person to appear at an appeal hearing.

  In 1987, requests were sent to the Republic of Ireland in three cases. None of these was in respect of crimes of a terrorist nature. In the current year, no requests have fallen to be made. In the period since the beginning of 1987, no requests have been refused.

  Information as to requests for the extradition of persons resident in Scotland from the Republic of Ireland is not available centrally and cannot be obtained except at disproportionate cost, but I understand that such requests are likely to have averaged two or three per annum and, so far as can be ascertained, they have been granted.

  EC (Regional Assistance)
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total amount of European social fund moneys allocated to Scotland in each of the years 1983 to 1987, inclusive, and for each assisted area and function so designated to receive such funds.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 1 December 1988]: I have been asked to reply. We do not have information on what amounts were allocated specifically to Scotland for 1983 to 1984 under the European social fund.

  For each of the years since 1985, the European Commission allocated to Scotland the following:

  Year

  ESF allocations in £ millions

  1985

  17·21

  1986

  14·05

  1987

  17·28

  The allocation to the Scottish areas of high and long term unemployment and/or the industrial and sectoral restructuring (i.e. priority regions as defined by the European Commission) per year was:

  297

  Priority ESF regions and allocations in £'s

  Regions

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Borders

  210,257

  —

  —

  Central

  239,299

  834,116

  881,123

  Dumfries and Galloway

  52,103

  136,661

  134,416

  Fife

  1,074,297

  238,155

  844,738

  Grampian

  238,461

  —

  —

  Highlands

  223,960

  334,008

  370,022

  Lothian

  3,052,829

  2,420,722

  —

  Strathclyde

  10,893,009

  8,737,971

  9,338,236

  Tayside

  436,220

  689,854

  1,740,136

  Western Isles

  151,131

  —

  —

  Because of the way the ESF Guidelines, which are the perogative of the European Commission, are drawn up, certain areas of Scotland will have had priority in one year but not in another.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Press Briefings
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next plans to hold a briefing meeting with journalists; and what subjects he intends to discuss.

  Mr. Major
  I have nothing to add to the answer that the hon. Member received from my right hon. Friend on 11 November at columns 358-59.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to ensure that his future interviews with the press are recorded by two or more tape-recorders.

  Mr. Major
  I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) earlier today.

  IMF
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet M. Michel Camdessus, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet M. Michel Camdessus, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Lawson
  I expect to see M. Camdessus at the Interim Committee meeting in Washington in April, when a wide range of matters will be discussed.

  Inflation
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current rate of inflation.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The retail price index rose by 6·4 per cent. in the year to October 1988.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current rate of inflation.

  Mr. Lilley
  The retail price index rose by 6·4 per cent. in the year to October 1988.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the principal factors increasing the inflation rate during the last year.
  298
  Mr. Lilley
  Inflation has risen as a consequence of the very strong growth in demand this year. Recent tightening of monetary policy will ensure that inflation falls in 1989.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he intends to take to make up the shortfall on spending experienced by Departments committed to projects whose costs have risen through increased inflation.

  Mr. Major
  New plans were announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Autumn Statement on 1 November. Although the expected level of inflation was a factor that was considered when setting these plans, public expenditure is planned in cash terms and in general there is no automatic adjustment for higher prices. The planning total for 1989–90 remains £167·1 billion, the same level published in the last public expenditure White Paper. Within that unchanged total there is provision for substantial increases in spending on priority programmes.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further steps he plans to take to reduce inflation.

  Mr. Lilley
  The progressive tightening of monetary conditions since the summer will exert downward pressure on inflation.

  Balance of Payments
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to the balance of payments deficits of(a) the United State of America and (b) the United Kingdom, expressed as a proportion of the gross national product.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to the balance of payments deficits of(a) the United States of America and (b) the United Kingdom, expressed as a proportion of the gross national product.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to the balance of payments deficits of(a) the United States of America and (b) the United Kingdom, expressed as a proportion of the gross national product.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to the balance of payments deficits of(a) the United States of America and (b) the United Kingdom, expressed as a proportion of the gross national product.

  Mr. Lilley
  In the latest 12 months for which figures are available, the current account deficit as a proportion of the gross national product was 2·0 per cent. in the United Kingdom compared with 3·1 per cent. in the United States of America.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current balance of payments position.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current balance of payments position.
  299
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current balance of payments position.

  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current balance of payments position.

  Mr. Major
  Recent import figures and other indicators have shown that domestic demand has been growing rather too fast. Appropriate action has been taken.

  Treasury Income
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total income to the Treasury since May 1979 from(a) North sea oil revenue and (b) the sale of publicly owned assets.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  For the period from 1979–80 to 1987–88, North sea oil revenues amounted to some £62 billion. For the period from 1979–80 to the end of 1988–89, net privatisation proceeds are estimated to amount to some £23·5 billion.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the level of interest rates to fall; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of future movement in interest rates over the next year.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of future movement in interest rates over the next year.

  Mr. Lilley
  Base rates are currently 13 per cent. I never comment on future movements in interest rates.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of interest rates.

  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of interest rates.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of interest rates.

  Mr. Lilley
  Bank base rates are 13 per cent.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of continuing high interest rates on the international competitiveness of the pound sterling.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of continuing high interest rates on the international competitiveness of the pound sterling.

  Mr. Lilley
  The sterling exchange rate is one of the factors taken into account in the continual and comprehensive assessment of monetary conditions.

  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will assess the impact of current levels of interest rates on the economy.
  300
  Mr. Lilley
  Higher interest rates will increase downward pressure on inflation and thereby provide the basis for our continued economic success.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of continuing high interest rates in the international competitiveness of the pound sterling.

  Mr. Lilley
  The sterling exchange rate is one of the factors taken into account in the continual and comprehensive assessment of monetary conditions.

  Unleaded Petrol
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding increases in the tax concession on unleaded petrol; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  In his last Budget, my right hon. Friend increased the tax differential in favour of unleaded petrol to nearly 11p per gallon so that at the pump it now sells at 5 or 6p cheaper than four-star.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to increase the tax concession on unleaded petrol; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  This is a matter for my right hon. Friend's Budget.

  Growth
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth between 1981 and 1987 of(a) consumer expenditure, (b) exports and (c) investment in the British economy.

  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth between 1981 and 1987 of(a) consumer expenditure, (b) exports and (c) investment in the British economy.

  Mr. Major
  Between 1981 and 1987 consumers' expenditure grew by 23 per cent. compared with growth of 28 per cent. for exports of goods and services and 33 per cent. for investment.

  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest figure for the growth of output in the economy.

  Mr. Major
  The output measure of gross domestic product is estimated to have grown by 5 per cent. in the year to 1988, third quarter.

  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the average annual growth of productivity in the United Kingdom economy since 1980.

  Mr. Major
  Whole economy productivity has grown by an average of 2¾ per cent. a year since 1980, a rate similar to that of Japan and faster than all other major industrial countries.

  "Residence in the United Kingdom"
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what responses he has received to the consultative document entitled "Residence in the United Kingdom".
  301
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  At 30 November, the date by which comments were requested, 168 responses had been received expressing a wide range of views.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met representatives of national pensioners' organisations to discuss the fiscal regime for pensioners.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met representatives of national pensioners' organisations to discuss the fiscal regime for pensioners.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met representatives of national pensioners' organisations to discuss the fiscal regime for pensioners.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met representatives of national pensioners' organisations to discuss the fiscal regime for pensioners.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend has not met representatives of national pensioners' organisations, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security meets representatives from time to time and passes on their concerns.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many major businesses have been privatised since 1979; and how many of their employees have bought shares as a consequence.

  Mr. Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many major businesses have been privatised since 1979; and how many of their employees have bought shares as a consequence.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Nineteen major businesses have been privatised since 1979; 90 per cent. of eligible employees have participated in Government share sales.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total estimated yield to the Exchequer in corporation tax of those companies which have been privatised since 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The companies privatised since 1979 paid a total of £1½ billion in corporation tax in the financial year 1987–88.

  Environment
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will institute a review of the impact of the taxation system on the environment.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  We have no plans for a separate review, but environmental issues are, of course, taken into account where appropriate in considering changes to the tax system.

  Profitability
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the level of profitability in the British economy.
  302
  Mr. Major
  Chart 2.9 of the forecast presented in the Autumn Statement indicates that in 1988 the net rate of return of non-North sea industrial and commercial companies should rise for the seventh successive year, to its highest level since the early 1960s.

  Personal Taxation
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the progress of his Department's plans for the reform of personal taxation.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The new system of independent taxation for husband and wife will be introduced in April 1990. The Inland Revenue already has preparations well in hand.

  Investment
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the level of investment in the economy.

  Mr. Major
  Total real fixed investment in the first half of 1988 was at its highest level ever, having grown by 9·6 per cent. on the same period a year earlier.

  Group of Seven
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to the current inflation rates of the member states of the Group of Seven industrialised countries.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to the current inflation rates of the member states of the Group of Seven leading industrialised countries.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary gave to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) earlier today.

  CBI
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet representatives of the Confederation of British Industry; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when does he next expect to meet representatives of the Confederation of British Industry; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Major
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner).

  Contingency Fund
  40. Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he expects to allocate any resources from the contingency fund in 1989–90 to (a) pensions and (b) education.
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he expects to allocate resources from the contingency fund in 1989–90 to(a) pensions and (b) education.
  303
  Mr. Major
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell).

  Child Tax Allowances
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to reintroduce child tax allowances.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to reintroduce child tax allowances.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to reintroduce child tax allowances.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to reintroduce child tax allowances.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  No.

  Taxation (Incentives)
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish any information his Department possesses on the incentive effects of the reduction in tax rates from 60 per cent. to 40 per cent. in his last Budget.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Estimates of the direct revenue costs of the reductions in income tax rates were published in the Financial Statement and Budget Report on Budget day. Notwithstanding those reductions, provisional figures suggest that income tax receipts in the first seven months of 1988–89 are 5 per cent. higher than in the corresponding period in 1987–88 as a result of the growth in employment and earnings. It is not possible to isolate the effects of the Budget measures on these factors.

  Tax Thresholds
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have been taken out of paying income tax as a result of the raising of tax thresholds over the past five years.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Over 820,000 fewer single people and married couples are liable to income tax in 1988–89 compared with those who would be liable under the tax regime in 1983–84 with allowances and thresholds indexed for inflation to 1988–89.

  Charitable Giving
  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the figures for the level of charitable giving.

  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures for the level of charitable giving.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I regret that comprehensive information on charitable giving is not available from official sources. Available information is as follows. Covenanted giving to charities amounted to some £450 million in 1985–86, £500 million in 1986–87 and is estimated at about £650 million in 1987–88. The available 304
  information on gifts to charities on death relates only to estates above the value at which capital transfer tax or inheritance tax would be payable in the absence of exemptions. For these estates the amounts are provisionally estimated at £300 million in both 1985–86 and 1986–87.

  Public Sector Debt
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total public sector debt repayment for the year 1987–88; what was the equivalent figure for 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  The public sector debt repayment was £3·6 billion in 1987–88, ¾ per cent. of GDP. In 1978–79 there was a public sector borrowing requirement (PSBR) of £9·2 billion, 5¼ per cent. of GDP, equivalent to a PSBR of £22·3 billion at 1987–88 levels of GDP.

  European Monetary System
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met his fellow European Community Ministers to discuss the European monetary systems.

  Mr. Lawson
  I meet my fellow European Finance Ministers regularly to discuss a wide range of economic matters.

  Adult Unemployment
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment has been made of the effect upon the economy of the fall in adult unemployment since 1981.

  Mr. Major
  The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate has decreased from 9.0 per cent. at the end of 1981 to 7·7 per cent. in October this year. This has been accompanied by an increase in the workforce in employment of more than 1·6 million, which together with an exceptionally strong increase in productivity, has been reflected in a rate of growth of output since 1980 faster than that in any other major EC country.

  Take-home Pay
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the increase in the real take-home pay of a married man on average earnings with two children since 1978–79.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  A married man with two children on average male earnings will have received a real increase in take-home pay of more than 29 per cent. between 1978–79 and 1988–89.

  Expenditure
  Mr. John Ward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the proportion of gross domestic product represented by general Government expenditure; and what was the comparable figure in 1982–83.

  Mr. Major
  The Autumn Statement gave a forecast of 39¾ per cent. for the ratio of general Government expenditure (excluding privatisation proceeds) to gross domestic product in 1988–89. The corresponding figure for 1982–83 was 46¾ per cent.
  305
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement on the outlook for public expenditure in 1989–90.

  Mr. Major
  As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House in his Autumn Statement on 1 November, the public expenditure planning total for 1989–90 will remain at £167·1 billion, the level published in the last public expenditure White Paper. Further details of the public expenditure plans will be given in the 1989 public expenditure White Paper, to be published in the new year.

  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what percentage the level of the price index or gross domestic product deflator for 1989–90 assumed in the autumn statement 1988 in table 1.1 on trends in public expenditure exceeds that assumed for 1989–90 in the autumn statement for 1987 in table 2.2.

  Mr. Major
  In the 1988 Autumn Statement the GDP deflator is assumed to rise by 5 per cent. in 1989–90. This is 1½ per cent. higher than the corresponding figure assumed in 1987.

  EC (Contributions)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the United Kingdom's contribution to the European Economic Community in 1987–88; and if this figure includes a proportion of the payment made to the European Economic Community in respect of its overspending in 1988.

  Mr. Brooke
  The United Kingdom's net payment to European Economic Community institutions in 1987–88 was £1,664 million. This figure does not include any amount in respect of our contribution to the 1988 IGA (assuming that is what my hon. Friend is referring to).

  National Debt
  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the cost to public funds in servicing the national debt in 1988–89; and what have been the comparable figures for the amount and percentage of total public expenditure over the past 10 years.

  Mr. Lilley
  The table below shows general Government gross debt interest payments for the year 1978–79 to 1991–92.

  General Government Gross Debt Interest Payments

  £ billion

  Percentage of General Government Expenditure

  1978–79

  7·4

  9·9

  1979–80

  9·4

  10·5

  1980–81

  11·4

  10·5

  1981–82

  13·3

  11·0

  1982–83

  13·9

  10·5

  1983–84

  14·5

  10·4

  1984–85

  16·1

  10·7

  1985–86

  17·7

  11·2

  1986–87

  17·6

  10·7

  1987–88

  17·5

  10·2

  1988–891

  17·7

  9·75

  1989–901

  17·0

  8·75

  306

  £ billion

  Percentage of General Government Expenditure

  1990–911

  16·0

  8

  1991–921

  15·5

  7·75

  1 Autumn Statement 1988 projections.

  Negative Income Tax
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his current estimate of the cost of introducing a system of negative income tax.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  It is not possible to estimate the cost since my hon. Friend has not provided sufficient information about the tax system that he has in mind.

  Disposable Income
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures for real personal disposable income in the British economy.

  Mr. Major
  In the first half of 1988 real personal disposable income was 3 per cent. higher than in the first half of 1987.

  Business Start-ups
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures for the number of business start-ups on the basis of value added tax registrations.

  Mr. Lilley
  The number of VAT registrations and de-registrations processed by Customs and Excise in the period April to October 1988 is:

  Number

  New registrations

  139,494

  De-registrations

  99,519

  Net increase

  39,975

  This represents a record average increase in the size of the VAT register of well over 1,000 a week.

  Capital Investment
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what proportion he expects fixed capital investment to rise in 1988 over 1987.

  Mr. Major
  Total fixed capital investment was forecast in the Autumn Statement to grow in real terms by 12 per cent. in 1988.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's intentions as to future rates of car tax.

  Mr. Lilley
  I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's next Budget Statement.

  Private Rented Housing
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the implementation of the extension of the BES to private rented housing.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave on 30 November 1988 to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) at column 273.

  Roads (Taxation)
  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money was received by the Treasury from road user taxes, broken down into(a) fuel duty, (b) vehicle excise duty, (c) car tax, (d) value added tax on vehicles and (e) value added tax on fuel in each year since 1974–75.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 5 December 1988]: The following information is available:

  £ million

  Fuel duty1

  Vehicle excise Duty2

  Car tax

  VAT on vechicles3

  VAT on road fuel4

  1974–75

  1,430

  520

  120

  ..

  240

  1975–76

  1,430

  770

  180

  ..

  460

  1976–77

  1,960

  810

  220

  ..

  280

  1977–78

  2,210

  1,050

  290

  ..

  300

  1978–79

  2,210

  1,090

  380

  480

  290

  1979–80

  2,670

  1,160

  520

  1,030

  490

  1980–81

  3,340

  1,360

  480

  970

  620

  1981–82

  4,430

  1,620

  510

  1,060

  760

  1982–83

  5,030

  1,840

  600

  1,260

  840

  1983–84

  5,410

  2,000

  700

  1,390

  920

  1984–85

  5,870

  2,260

  740

  1,450

  980

  1985–86

  6,250

  2,430

  860

  1,650

  1,040

  1986–87

  7,300

  2,520

  960

  1,900

  950

  1987–88

  7,670

  2,600

  1,130

  2,300

  1,020

  Youth Cohort Study (England and Wales)

  Percentage of School Leavers on YTS or Out of Work at the time of the survey.

  19851

  19862

  19873

  Region

  On YTS

  Out of Work

  On YTS

  Out of Work

  On YTS

  Out of Work

  North

  31

  30

  57

  13

  56

  15

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  31

  26

  47

  18

  50

  16

  North West

  28

  28

  51

  17

  51

  16

  East Midlands

  27

  24

  47

  15

  47

  12

  West Midlands

  32

  26

  57

  15

  55

  14

  East Anglia

  24

  22

  44

  12

  41

  11

  Greater London

  18

  20

  25

  21

  23

  16

  South East

  20

  19

  34

  14

  34

  10

  South West

  27

  17

  50

  11

  42

  12

  Wales

  37

  28

  55

  16

  55

  15

  Percentage Total

  27

  24

  46

  16

  45

  14

  1 12,500 1984 summer school leavers surveyed in summer 1985.

  2 20,000 1985 summer school leavers surveyed in spring 1986.

  3 20,000 1986 summer school leavers surveyed in spring 1987.

  Employment Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will outline the overall budget for funding the underpinning agreements given to ET training managers broken down by region; how much has so far been claimed; and if he will make a statement on the progress of the underpinning arrangements.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The underpinning arrangements are funded from the overall resources available for employment training and there are no separate regional
  308
  Notes:

  1 Excise duty receipts from petrol and DERV.

  2 Vehicle excise duty on all types of road vehicle.

  3 VAT on vehicles has been estimated from consumers' purchases of cars and motor cycles, and businesses' purchases of cars (on which tax is not deductible). Information is not available before 1978–79.

  4 VAT on fuel has been estimated from consumers' expenditure on fuel (including oil).

  Child Benefit
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many and what proportion of those families with children who receive more in child benefit than they pay in income tax are out of work.

  Mr. Lawson
  [holding answer 29 November 1988]: In 1988–89, it is estimated that some 2 million families with children will receive more in child benefit than they pay out in income tax. About one quarter of heads of these families are unemployed. These estimates are based on projections of the results of the 1986 Family Expenditure Survey and are subject to revision.

EMPLOYMENT

  YTS
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the percentage of school leavers in each local education authority area(a) entering YTS and (b) remaining unemployed since the YTS began.

  Mr. Cope
  The information is not available in the form requested. Figures from the youth cohort study (England and Wales) for the regions of England and Wales for the years 1985 to 1987 are provided in the table:

  budgets for this purpose. So far some £836,000 has been claimed by training managers and these arrangements will continue to operate in a cost-effective way.

  Disabled Persons (Staff)
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of his Department's staff are classed as disabled.
  309
  Mr. Lee
  At 1 June 1988, 2·23 per cent. of the Employment Department group's staff were registered as disabled. In addition, the group employs staff with disabilities who chose not to register.

  Data Protection Act
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment why members of his Department are on the interdepartmental group looking at the workings of the Data Protection Act; and whether he will define the concerns of his Department in respect of the Data Protection Act.

  Mr. Cope
  Many of the views expressed to the Data Protection Registrar in his informal consultation review on the workings of the Data Protection Act have been put by small firms and by organisations representing their interests. I have responsibility for representing the views of the small firms sector within Government.

  Teachers (Pay)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will set out a table showing current figures for pay in real terms of teachers and the top quartile of non-manual average earnings over the same dates and for the same categories of teachers.

  Mr. Lee
  The latest available information, for April 1988 is published in table 1 of part A of the report on the new earnings survey 1988 for all non-manual employees, and in tables 50 and 51 of part B for male and female teachers. A copy of the report is in the Library.

  Restart
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East,Official Report, 1 December, columns 370-71, in what form the information relating to restart interviews is held; if he will provide an approximate breakdown of the costs involved in obtaining it; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  Information on restart interviews is collected on individual record cards which are completed for every person contacted by the programme. These records are summarised on monthly returns for employment service offices, areas, regions and Great Britain. They contain information on the number of people contacted, the number interviewed and the outcome.

  It is not possible to isolate from other administrative work the costs of collecting the information.

  Coal Industry (Accidents)
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any intention to postpone the proposed amendments to the Mines and Quarries Act 1984 in view of the poor accident rates of contractors to British Coal.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No. The proposed new legislation to replace the 1954 Act is intended to improve or maintain safety standards for all persons employed at mines including contractors.

  Businesses
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the actions taken by the Government since the beginning of this Parliament to encourage small and medium-sized businesses.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 5 December 1988]: Since June 1987, the Government have continued in their efforts to promote a more vigorous enterprise culture and stimulate the development of small and medium sized businesses (SMEs).

  Information and Advice

  The small firms service (SFS) has increases its links with other agencies in the small firms support network. Its database of national information is now available to other organisations advising small businesses.

  In 1987–88 the SFS answered over 266,000 inquiries, helped over 27,000 small businesses by counselling, and held over 39,000 counselling sessions.

  The service has opened six inner city offices and is appointing inner city business advisers to promote self-employment and small business development in inner city areas. In December 1987 the service opened a centre for European business information in London.

  The recent pilot for Government business shops will be expanded in 1989 with plans for four more in England, two of which will be sited in small firms centres. They will provide information on tax, national insurance and VAT, to help tackle Government rules and regulations at a single point.

  Further details of the service's achievements are contained in the small firms service 1987–88 annual report, a copy of which is in the Library.

  The local enterprise agency grant scheme was introduced on 1 April 1986 to encourage greater private sector support for the agencies. £2,713,856 was paid to 186 agencies in 1987–88. A local enterprise agency project scheme (LEAPS) commenced on 1 July 1988 to support projects providing special help to inner city businesses. To encourage private sector support for LEAs, the Government made provision in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (section 79) for tax relief on contributions to approved agencies by a company or unincorporated business.

  The Rural Development Commission provides rural small businesses with advice through 33 business service offices. On 13 January the Department of Trade and Industry introduced the "enterprise initiative", a national programme which aims to raise the performance of management by promoting the use of best practice. The key element in the enterprise initiative is the six consultancy initiatives, covering marketing (including export marketing), design, quality, manufacturing systems, business planning, and financial and information systems. The other initiatives cover research and technology, enterprise and education, regional assistance and export.

  Single European Market

  The DTI has run a campaign to persuade firms of all sizes to prepare for the completion of the single European market in 1992.

  Finance

  Use of the loan guarantee scheme has increased following the introduction of simplified administrative procedures for loans up to £15,000. On 22 June 1988, as part of the action for cities initiative, an increase in the
  312
  guarantee to 85 per cent. was introduced for businesses based in, or working to be based in, inner city task force areas.

  The Business Expansion Scheme

  In his Budget statement my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a ceiling of £500,000 on investments under the business expansion scheme in any one company in any period of 12 months.

  By the end of October 1988, over 390,000 people had taken part in the enterprise allowance scheme. Greater emphasis is now being placed on counselling and training applicants.

  Taxation

  The basic rate of income tax has been reduced from 27 per cent. to 25 per cent. and the small companies' rate of corporation tax has been reduced from 27 per cent. to 25 per cent. Capital gains tax has been rebased to 1982 so that only gains on losses accrued since 31 March 1982 are brought forward into account. Retirement relief has been extended to include 50 per cent. of the gains between £125,000 and £5,000. The inheritance tax threshold has been raised from £90,000 to £110,000 and the previous four rates reduced to a single rate of 40 per cent. The VAT registration threshold has been increased to £22,100. The rules for registration of voluntary and intending traders have been relaxed. Following a review of the Finance Act 1985 VAT penalties, a number of changes have been made to the regulations including the introduction of a more flexible penalty system for late registration.

  Training

  Since the introduction of employment training (ET) in September this year, the provision of training for enterprise programmes has been split between ET, for those wishing to start up in business, and programmes dealing with growth and development of existing small firms.

  Employment training provides training for people who want to become self-employed and they can enter the programme without having to satisfy the usual ET eligibility criteria. A full range of enterprise training is available throughout the country on ET including enterprise assignments, counselling, skills training, enterprise rehearsal and formal start-up training through business enterprise programme (BEP) courses.

  The Department of Employment Training Agency also runs a number of programmes aimed at equipping existing entrepreneurs with the skills and knowledge required to manage and develop a small business succesfully.

  Purchasing

  The Government have improved small firms' access to information about purchasing departments, their procedures, requirements and points of contact. A Department of Employment booklet, "Tendering for Government Contracts," has been supplemented by some individual Departments' own publications and information published on Prestel. Tendering and approval procedures have been simplified by exempting suppliers to most Government Departments from normal approval procedures for contracts under £10,000, by allowing non-approved firms to tender for non-urgent contracts subject to subsequent approval and by encouraging Departments to make regular reviews of tender lists to encourage new suppliers.
  313
  MOD Initiatives

  MOD has continued to pursue the small firms initiative launched in November 1986. On 30 November 1988 the small firms advice division was expanded into the newly established MOD new suppliers service but the new service still retains within it a small firms group. A new and expanded edition of the booklet, "Selling to the MOD," has been published. These latest initiatives will encourage more companies of all sizes to compete for MOD business.

  Innovation

  The small firms merit award for research and technology—SMART—was run for the first time in 1986 to encourage small firms and potential entrepreneurs to put forward innovative ideas that cannot attract existing sources of funding. The Department of Trade and Industry, which runs this scheme, is evaluating the second competition which was run this year. It was extended to 140 awards in a broad range of technologies.

  The support for innovation schemes was introduced in 1981 by the Department of Industry to offer firms assistance with research and development projects. Small firms have a simplified appraisal process and so far 50 per cent. of participants in the scheme have been small firms.

  The teaching company scheme was set up by the Science and Engineering Research Council and the Department of Trade and Industry in the mid-1970s. In 1977–78 total funding for the scheme was around £15 million split between DTI, the research councils and industry. The scheme has led to the recruitment of high quality graduates into small companies, especially those with no previous graduate employees. The Department of Trade and Industry announced earlier this year that the scheme is being substantially increased with a target of 500 projects by 1992–93. The DTI will also put greater emphasis on the projects of small and medium sized firms, which should comprise 60 per cent. of all projects by 1992–93.

  Inner Cities

  As part of the Government's action for cities programme announced on 7 March, new initiatives have been introduced to extend the wide range of help available to new and existing small businesses in inner city areas and to make services to small firms more accessible.

  Marketing

  In 1987, my Department, together with the then Manpower Services Commission and Lloyds Bank, sponsored a series of workshops designed to show managers of small firms how to improve their competitiveness by the implementation of practical marketing techniques. COSIRA (now merged with the Development Commission), with funds provided by my Department offered grant to assist small rural businesses to improve their marketing and sales to trade buyers.

  Wales

  The Secretary of State for Wales instigated the gateway network initiative for small businesses in October 1987. It provides a high quality advice service to businesses in Wales through co-operation between member organisations. In July 1988 the local investment initiative ("local link") was launched. This scheme fosters contact between local businesses and investors.

  In October 1988 a one-stop shop (Government Business Shop) was launched with the purpose of enabling businesses to get advice on tax and other Government regulations under one roof.
  314
  Northern Ireland

  In Northern Ireland initiatives have included:
  —introduction of new arrangements for enterprise training, covering those setting up new small businesses;
  —upgrading of support to SMEs to help them improve their marketing and export activities;
  —a programme to increase the awareness of local businesses of the opportunity to supply public sector purchasing requirement.

  Scotland

  The Government continue to provide substantial assistance to small firms in Scotland through the wide range of services delivered on an integrated basis by the Scottish Development Agency, including the consultancy initiative and the small firms information service and business counselling service; through the Highlands and Isles Development Board; and through the Industry Department for Scotland.

  The year 1987 saw a net increase of 2,500 registered companies in Scotland. Many of these received Government assistance. Scotland was the first area in the United Kingdom to open a Government business shop to provide small companies with advice on Government regulations.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  School Fees
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list in the Official Report the number of allowances and the total amount paid by the Government for day school fees in both the United Kingdom and overseas for the education of the children of (a) members of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, (b) members of the Diplomatic Service communications division and (c) the Overseas Development Administration including children of technical co-operation officers, for the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There is no provision to pay day school fees in the United Kingdom.

  Total costs of day school education overseas for the financial year 1987–88 was £1,540,000 made up as follows:

  (a) FCO £1,114,000.

  (b) Diplomatic Service Communications Division £51,000.

  (c) ODA £375,000.

  A record of the number of children involved is not maintained.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list in the Official Report the schools from which receipted bills were submitted in the last convenient year to facilitate the payment of allowances for the education of the children of diplomatic staff; and if he will state the number of children attending each school.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The allowance paid to children of Diplomatic Service officers who attend boarding schools in the United Kingdom is based on an average of the fees of all boarding schools on the headmasters' conference list.
  315
  Only limited information is kept on schools used overseas. Each mission maintains its own list of authorised schools which offer education of a kind available without cost under the state system in Britain.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list in the Official Report the number of allowances and the total amount paid by the Government for boarding school fees in both the United Kingdom and overseas for the education of the children of (a) members of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, (b) members of the Diplomatic Service communications division and (c) the Overseas Development Administration including children of technical co-operation officers for the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Fees are not paid for children to attend overseas boarding schools.

  Expenditure on allowances paid to enable children to attend boarding schools in the United Kingdom in the financial year 1987–88 was as follows:

  (a) FCO £7,031,000

  (b) Diplomatic Service (DS) communications division £753,000

  (c) ODA £1,500,000

  The number of children at boarding school will vary during the course of the year. The numbers currently attending are:

  (a) FCO 989 children

  (b) DS communications division 111 children

  (c) ODA 447 children

  Diplomatic Service officers retain their right to boarding school allowance while serving in the United Kingdom in recognition of their liability to further overseas postings. In these circumstances the allowance is taxable and is grossed up to take account of the tax liability. The cost figures above take account of this.

  Holiday Visits
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the approximate cost of holiday visit passages paid in respect of(a) children of Foreign Office personnel being educated in the United Kingdom and in receipt of education allowances and (b) members of the Diplomatic Service communications division being educated in the United Kingdom and in receipt of education allowances and of any further travelling expenses paid for the latest available year.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The cost of fares paid to enable children to rejoin their parents overseas during the three school holidays was £977,000, made up as follows:

  (a) FCO £920,000

  (b) Diplomatic Service Communications Division £57,000

  In addition, the sum of £51,000 (£48,000 plus £3,000) was spent as a contribution towards the cost of travel between school and airports in the United Kingdom.

  These figures include costs of journeys made by children aged 18 to 21 who are in full-time further education and not, therefore, in receipt of education allowances.

  Tjeluvyo Mgedezi
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make immediate 316
  representations to the South African Government to appeal for clemency for Tjeluvyo Mgedezi, the miners' leader who has been sentenced to be hanged.

  Mrs. Chalker
  It is not our normal practice to intervene in such cases. We do so only exceptionally, when all other avenues have been exhausted. Our criteria are that the case must be clearly political, and there must also be strong extenuating circumstances or grounds to doubt the fairness of the judicial process. Our embassy in Pretoria has spoken with Mr. Mgedezi's lawyers and understands that he intends to petition President Botha for clemency.

  Mrs. Molly Maher
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why officials from his Department advised Mrs. Molly Maher of 28 Singleton road, Brighton, that they had no power to obtain or provide local assistance in interpretation facilities or provide advice and assistance to British citizens contemplating civil actions abroad; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Formal interpretation/translation services overseas are not provided by consular officials, although at times they are able to assist informally. Consular officials cannot give legal advice to British citizens in general or specific terms on civil actions abroad. It is for the individual's own lawyers to recommend whether a case should be instituted and how it should be carried through.

  In this instance Mrs. Maher's lawyer elected to serve papers through legal rather than diplomatic channels. However, Mrs. Maher has been in regular contact both with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the British embassy, Madrid, which has been checking and advising her of progress.

  Disarmament
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what policy decisions have been taken by Her Majesty's Government on the definition of the phrase "at an early date" in article 6 of the 1968 nuclear non-proliferation treaty, with regard to the process of negotiated nuclear disarmament.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Article VI of the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons requires the parties to it to pursue negotiations on effective measures connected with nuclear disarmament. Since the United States and the Soviet Union possess between them the overwhelming preponderance of nuclear weapons it is universally recognised that the primary responsibility for negotiations falls to them. The United States and Soviet Union are currently engaged in such negotiations which aim at 50 per cent. reductions in their strategic nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how his Department was represented, in terms of papers presented or observers sent, at(a) the workshop on the verification of nuclear and conventional arms reductions at St. Bartholomew's hospital medical college from 30 November to 2 December and (b) the international scientists symposium, "Ways out of the Arms Race," at Imperial college of science and technology, in London from 2 to 4 December.
  317
  Mr. Waldegrave
  A member of the arms control and disarmament research unit of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office attended both the workshop on the verification of nuclear and conventional arms reductions at St. Bartholomew's hospital medical college and the international scientists' symposium at Imperial college as an observer. He was joined by another member of the unit for the symposium.

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government intend to take to fulfil their undertakings under the partial nuclear test ban treaty 1963, to set a date for the ending of all nuclear testing.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The 1963 partial test ban treaty does not require the parties to it to set a date for the ending of all nuclear tests. The parties to the treaty state as their principal aim the speediest possible achievement of an agreement on general and complete disarmament. The cessation of nuclear testing is clearly linked with this. For as long as we rely for our security on deterrence based in part on the possession of nuclear weapons we will need to test them at a minimum level. The cessation of nuclear testing, therefore, remains a long-term goal.

WALES

  Water Rate
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report the average equated water rate poundage for each water authority in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested by the hon. Member is set out in the table:

  Average equated water rate 1988–89

  Water authority

  Water supply

  Sewerage services

  Environ-mental services

  Pence total

  Severn Trent1

  22·6

  27·6

  0·75

  50·95

  Welsh Water

  52·11

  49·02

  1·87

  108·00

  Source: Water authority returns.

  1 The geographical area which Severn Trent serves extends into mid-Wales. However, it is not possible to break the figure down on a purely Welsh basis.

  Elderly Patients
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of patients visit general practitioners for treatment according to the number of appointments made for treatment within the following age bands(a) under 65 years, (b) between 65 and 74 years and (c) over 75 years.

  Mr. Grist
  Information on the numbers of appointments with GPs is not available centrally.

  Disabled Persons (Staff)
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of his Department's staff are classed as disabled.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  1·4 per cent.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessments he has made as to the likely effect on(a) his Department's capital building programme and (b) the rent the Department will pay under occupational leases, of implementation of the European Court of Justice's judgment on value added tax on non-domestic buildings.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Implementation of the European Court of Justice's judgment on value added tax will have no effect on my Department's capital building programme, since compensating adjustments have been made to the relevant expenditure provisions. At this stage, before landlords have decided whether to exercise their option to tax rents, it is not possible to offer meaningful estimates of the effects of the judgment on rental costs.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement detailing the funding of research into the effect of pesticides used in the Welsh agricultural industry.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on 1 December 1988, at column 328, by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Industry (Ownership)
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has of the likely pattern of ownership of industry in Wales over the next five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I have made no such estimate.

  Special Waste
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report figures for each of the last five years of the volume of special waste imported into, and exported out of, Wales.

  Mr. Ian Grist
  This information is not maintained centrally.

  Skill Shortages
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the level of skill shortages in(a) Newport, (b) Gwent and (c) Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Information on skill shortages is not held centrally. Area offices of the Training Agency collect local information on the CALLMI system (computer assisted local labour market intelligence).

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on how many manufacturing companies are having difficulties recruiting skilled manual labour in(a)Newport, (b) Gwent and (c) Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Information is not available centrally on the number of manufacturing companies having difficulties recruiting skilled labour. Any problems are dealt with locally by the area office of the Training Agency.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in(a) Newport, (b) Gwent and (c) Wales are participating in training and retraining programmes.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The number of people participating in training and retraining programmes is as follows:

  YTS

  Employment training

  Residual community programe job training scheme

  Newport

  1,295

  586

  12

  Gwent

  4,317

  1,894

  25

  Wales

  26,083

  12,225

  4,760

  Figures are not available for miscellaneous smaller training programmes such as training for enterprise; local grants to employers and the wider opportunities training programme.

  Council House Tenants
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many council house tenants in(a) Newport, (b) Gwent and (c) Wales receive benefit of some kind.

  Mr. Grist
  The numbers of council tenants in receipt of housing benefit in 1987–88 were as follows:

  Cases of eviction

  Cases accepted as homeless

  Action by local authority

  Action by other landlord

  Total evictions

  Cases of repossession action by mortgagee

  1987

  Newport

  625

  7

  150

  157

  94

  Gwent

  1,503

  47

  269

  316

  160

  Wales

  5,683

  158

  1,030

  1,188

  859

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Family Credit and Housing Benefit
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people he expects to be eligible for family credit and housing benefit in 1989–90, with a breakdown of their tenure;

  (2) how much he expects to spend on family credit in 1989–90; and how much of this is attributable (a) to the notional compensation for free school meals and milk and (b) to the freezing of child benefit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Estimates of the average number of people likely to receive family credit and housing benefit in 1989–90 along with the estimate of expenditure on family credit will be published in the public expenditure White Paper early in the new year.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total number of pensioners overseas currently in receipt of United Kingdom pensions; and what are(a) the numbers in each country, (b) the
  320

  Tenants

  Newport

  10,700

  Gwent

  37,508

  Wales

  189,745

  Source: Department of Social Security.

  Information on the number of council tenants in receipt of other benefits could not be obtained without incurring disproportionate costs.

  Housing
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many repossession orders there have been in(a) Newport, (b) Gwent and (c) Wales since the housing benefit changes last April; and how many there were in 1987;

  (2) how many cases of homelessness there have been in (a) Newport, (b) Gwent and (c) Wales since the housing benefit changes last April; and how many there were in 1987;

  (3) how many cases of eviction there have been in (a) Newport, (b) Gwent and (c) Wales since the housing benefit changes last April; and how many there were in 1987.

  Mr. Ian Grist
  Information on homelessness resulting from eviction and repossession in 1987 is given in the following table. Statistics for the period following the housing benefit changes are not yet available.

  number in countries where annual increments apply and (c) the number in countries where annual increments do not apply.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to my hon. Friend's reply to him on 19 May 1988 at columns 551-54. More up to date figures are not available.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average income of those 75 years of age and over; and what is the real term increase in the incomes of those aged 75 years and over since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In 1986 the average net income of those aged 75 and over was £78·08. This represents a 26·9 per cent. real increase since 1979.Source: Family Expenditure Survey 1986.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) at what level of income the earnings rule has operated in respect of retirement pensions in each year from 1984–85 to the present date;

  (2) if he will list the value of the earnings rule for retirement pensions as a percentage of (i) gross and (ii) net average earning for each year since 1984.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is as follows:
  321

  Average weekly earnings of all male manual workers1

  Earnings rule as a percentage of gross and net earnings

  Uprating dates

  Earnings rule

  Single person

  Married couple

  Single person

  Married couple

  gross

  net

  gross

  net

  gross

  net

  gross

  net

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  percent.

  percent.

  percent.

  percent.

  November 1984

  70·00

  159·60

  108·90

  159·60

  115·50

  43·9

  64·3

  43·9

  60·6

  November 1985

  75·00

  168·70

  115·60

  168·70

  122·80

  44·5

  64·9

  44·5

  61·1

  July 1986

  75·00

  176·70

  122·60

  176·70

  129·90

  42·4

  61·2

  42·4

  57·7

  April 1987

  75·00

  185·50

  131·30

  185·50

  138·40

  40·4

  57·1

  40·4

  54·2

  April 1988

  75·00

  200·60

  144·90

  200·60

  152·10

  37·4

  51·8

  37·4

  49·3

  1Estimates of average weekly earnings for full-time employees, seasonally adjusted.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to improve the arrangements for payment to pensioners on income support of assistance for fuel costs during the winter months.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  General help with fuel costs is provided within income support allowances. The income support premiums target extra help to vulnerable groups including pensioners.

  In addition, the social fund cold weather payments scheme provides help with extra heating costs incurred when the weather is particularly cold. A number of improvements to this scheme have already been announced which will increase the number of payments which can be made.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 30 November, how the estimated 1988–89 annual expenditure on housing benefit in Nottingham was calculated.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is largely a matter for the local authority to determine the basis for calculating the annual housing benefit expenditure estimate. In making an estimate the authority should take account of the effect of changes to the scheme and local factors such as increases in rate and rent levels. Actual expenditure for the financial year is, of course, subject to audit by the district auditor.

  VAT
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessments he has made as to the likely effect on(a) his Department's capital building programme and (b) the rent the Department will pay under occupational leases of implementation of the European Court of Justice's judgment on value added tax on non-domestic buildings.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Implementation of the European Court of Justice's judgment on VAT will have no effect on the Department's capital building programme since compensating adjustments have been made to the relevant expenditure provisions. At this stage, before landlords have decided whether to exercise their option to tax rents, it is not possible to offer meaningful estimates of the effects of the judgment on rental costs.

  Disabled Persons (Staff)
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of his Department's staff are classed as disabled.
  322
  Mr. Scott
  Separate figures for the Department of Social Security are not available, but the June 1988 percentage for the Department of Health and Social Security was 1·42.

  Languages
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which of his Department's publications are produced in languages other than English; and which are the additional languages used.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The following list details all of the forms currently available, or which will be available by the end of January, in Welsh.

  Family Credit

  FCI and FC2.

  Social Fund

  SF100, SF200, SF101, SF102, SF103 and SF113.

  General

  BF134.

  National Insurance

  NI255 and RD3A.

  An up-to-date version of leaflet FB2 entitled "Which Benefit", which gives details of the Social Security benefits available, is currently in preparation in Urdu, Bengali, Gujerati, Hindi, Punjabi, Chinese and Turkish. A revision of the previous leaflet has been necessary following the Social Security changes in April 1988. It is hoped to publish the amended version by the end of the year.

  Benefit Forms
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the forms which have to be filled in for each benefit administered by his Department; and how many pages and how many questions are found in each.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A list of the principal claim forms for benefits administered by the Department is as follows. The other information requested is not readily available and could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Main Benefit

  Form No.

  Details

  Income support

  B1

  Income support for people who are unemployed

  B1(Student)

  Income Support for Students who are unemployed (during long vacations)

  B71D

  Income Support for people involved in Trade Disputes

  SP1

  Income Support for people who are over retirement age

  A1

  Income Support—for people who are sick or looking after children or sick or elderly relatives

  Social Fund

  SF100

  Maternity Payment—postal claim form

  323

  Main Benefit

  Form No.

  Details

  SF200

  Funeral Payment—postal claim form

  SF300

  Application for Budgeting Loan or Community Care Grant

  SF400

  Crisis Loan application form

  Widows Benefit

  BW1

  Application for Widows Pension, Widows Payment and/or Widowed Mothers Allowance

  Retirement Pensions

  BR1

  Application for Retirement Pension

  Child Benefits

  CH2

  Initial Claim for Child Benefit including One Parent Benefit if appropriate

  CH12

  Claim for Child Benefit for additional children

  BG1

  Claim for Guardians Allowance if a person takes an orphaned child into the family

  Incapacity Benefits

  SC1

  Claim for Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) or Sickness Benefit self certificated sickness

  SSP1(E)

  Claim for Sickness or Invalidity Benefit for people who do not qualify for SSP from work

  SP1(T)

  Claim for Sickness or Invalidity Benefit when SSP from work runs out

  SDA1 part of leaflet NI252

  Claim for Severe Disablement Allowance (for people below retirement age who cannot work because of illness or disablement)

  Maternity pay

  MA1

  Claim for Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) from work or Maternity Allowance

  Family Credit

  FC1

  Family Credit—postal claim form

  Agency Benefits

  AG1

  Claim for help with National Health Service charges and travelling expenses

  Attendance Allowance

  NI251

  Attendance Allowance

  NI212

  Invalid Care Allowance—for people looking after someone who has Attendance Allowance

  Injury and Disability

  BI104

  Constant Attendance Allowance for people who need constant attention because of the effects of an industrial accident or disease

  BI103

  Reduced Earnings Allowance for people who cannot return to their former occupation because of the effects of an industrial accident or disease

  BI100A

  IIDB for Industrial Accidents

  BI100(OA)

  IIDB for Occupational Asthma

  BI100B

  IIDB for a Prescribed Industrial Disease

  BI100C

  Claim for further award of Unemployability Supplement—the initial award does not need a separate claim form

  BI100(OD)

  IIDB for Occupational Deafness

  BI100P

  IIDB for Pneumoconiosis (certain cases only)

  BI100Pn

  IIDB for Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis, Silicosis and Asbestosis

  324

  Main Benefit

  Form No.

  Details

  WS1

  Claim for Workmens

  Compensation Supplement—for people who contracted industrial diseases before 5 July 1948

  PNIA

  Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis and Miscellaneous Disease Benefit for people who contracted the relevant diseases as a result of employment before 5 July 1948

  NI225

  Claim for Mobility Allowance

  Centrepoint, Soho
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will increase his grant to Centrepoint, Soho to enable them to accommodate 16 to 17-year-olds;

  (2) what steps he intends to take to ensure continuity of funding for Centrepoint, Soho's work with homeless 16 to 17-year-olds in the west end of London.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Department makes an annual contribution towards the costs of the Centrepoint hostel under paragraph 4 of schedule 5 of the Social Security Act 1980.

  An application for increased funding is currently under consideration.

  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will instruct his officials to meet representatives of Centrepoint, Soho urgently following the withdrawal of benefit entitlement fronm 16 to 17-year-olds.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Discussions have taken place at local level about operational arrangements. Officials in headquarters will, however, arrange to meet representatives of Centrepoint to discuss more widely issues arising from the general withdrawal of entitlement to income support from 16 and 17-year-olds.

  Family Income Supplement
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will indicate the average cost of providing family income supplement prior to April 1988 and family credit since that date.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In 1985–86, the latest date for which information on administrative costs is available, it is estimated that the average weekly cost per family income supplement beneficiary was approximately 45p. Figures for 1986–87 will be published in the public expenditure White Paper early in the new year. Comparable figures for family credit are not available. In June 1987, the average award of family income supplement was approximately £15 per week. Indications are that current awards of family credit average over £25 per week.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide additional information for the most recent comparable period before April stating the average delay between receipt of a claim for family income supplement and the determination of the claim; and if he will indicate how many claims were then awaiting determination.
  325
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The average clearance time for claims cleared during the four weeks ending 11 March 1988 was just over 16 working days. On 11 March, there were 29,044 claims awaiting determination.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give details of the current budget for publicising and promoting family credit and provide information in a comparable form for the previous budget for publicising family income supplement; and what plans he has to raise awareness of family credit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The advertising budget for family credit is over £3 million in the current financial year. Family income supplement was last advertised in 1983–84 when some £½ million was spent. Both figures exclude expenditure on leaflets and posters where direct comparisons are not possible. For details of current and future publicity I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) on 4 November at column 810.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will indicate the current level of average delay between receipt of a claim for family credit and the determination of a claim; and how many claims are awaiting determination at present.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  For clearance time, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) on 6 December. At the end of November there were 46,773 family credit claims outstanding. Of these, about 32,000 were awaiting replies to inquiries, mainly to employers or the claimant.

  YTS
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what benefits are available to Terry Flowers of Coventry aged 17 years, who is registered for YTS but unable to obtain a placing and whose bridging allowance has expired; and if he will entertain a claim from Mr. Flowers for payment of benefit on the grounds of hardship.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Claims for income support under the severe hardship provision will be entertained from any 16 or 17-year-old. However, we can consider making payments only to young people who are actively pursuing a YTS place.

  Multi-occupied Properties
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy that his Department's local office inform local authorities and fire authorities of hostels and other multi-occupied properties which claimants give as addresses for benefit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information supplied by benefit claimants is held in strict confidence. The staff in local offices may, however, consult local authority social services and/or fire prevention officers in confidence when in their view there are serious risks to the life or health of an individual claimant arising from the condition of a home or hostel.
  326
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his local office staff recommended to claimants the 24 bed hostel in Hay Mills, Birmingham.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. Local office staff do not recommend addresses to claimants.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East on 1 December,Official Report, col. 389, concerning unemployment benefit, what information is available and over what range he will answer questions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information relating to age, sex, benefit status and duration of unemployment is collected in respect of a 5 per cent. sample of claimants for unemployment benefit on a particular day at six-monthly intervals. It is not collected in respect of all claimants making claims at a particular unemployment benefit office (UBO).

  The only information collected on the basis of individual UBOs is the number of claims made each month. Information is not collected on how many of those claims satisfy the necessary conditions of entitlement yet result in disqualification for benefit.

  To collect the kind of detailed information requested by the hon. Member would entail mounting a special exercise. This would be disproportionately costly.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by what percentage the addition to invalidity benefit for a dependent child, including child benefit, is to be increased in April 1989; and what was the percentage increase in prices over the 12 months to September 1988.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The child dependency increase payable with invalidity benefit is to be uprated by the best of both worlds approach which my right hon. Friend explained to the House on 27 October. The child dependency increase will rise by slightly more than 6·5 per cent. from April 1989. The addition to invalidity benefit for a dependent child, including child benefit, will be increased by 3·5 per cent. The percentage increase in the published RPI over the 12 months to September 1988 was 5·9 per cent.

ENERGY

  Wind Turbine Generators
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the number of three-bladed steel wind turbine generators that have been given planning permission and their locations; how many are awaiting planning permission and what are their locations; and if he will make a statement about the relative merits of this source of energy.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Department of Energy does not keep records on applications for, or awards of, planning permission for wind turbines.

  However, large three-bladed wind turbines have been or are being constructed in the following locations:

  Shetland

  Caithness

  Orkney

  Aberdeen

  327

  Ayrshire

  Cornwall

  Northumberland

  Devon

  Yorkshire

  Kent

  Dyfed

  Conservation Funding
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what funding he has made available for(a) domestic and (b) industrial energy conservation measures;

  (2) what has been the total of Government expenditure on energy conservation measures in industry, public sector housing and private sector housing for the years 1979 to 1988; and what are the projected expenditure levels for energy-saving initiatives for the years 1988 to 1991.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Many of the energy efficiency programmes operated by my Department have been cross-sectoral, so information on total expenditure by sector is not readily available. The programmes of a number of other Government Departments contribute to the improvement of energy eficiency, but it is normally not possible to attribute expenditure between the energy efficiency and the other objectives of the programmes. The table gives expenditure by my Department on energy efficiency programmes, expenditure by the Department of the Environment, the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office on the homes insulation scheme, and an estimate of expenditure by the Departments of Employment and Social Security on the community insulation programme (these payments also contribute towards employment and social policy objectives).

  £ millions

  Energy efficiency programmes1

  Homes insulation scheme2

  Community insulation programme3

  1979–80

  2·4

  15·9

  —

  1980–81

  4·5

  16·5

  —

  1981–82

  6·9

  24·3

  —

  1982–83

  9·4

  30·0

  —

  1983–84

  11·4

  25·5

  5·4

  1984–85

  17·5

  25·3

  8·3

  1985–86

  22·5

  28·0

  18·5

  1986–87

  24·5

  25·6

  35·5

  1987–88

  18·6

  421·6

  44·1

  1988–89

  520·8

  —

  —

  1 Expenditure by the Department of the Environment and the Department of Energy.

  2 Expenditure by the Scottish and Welsh Offices.

  3 Estimated expenditure by the Departments of Employment and Social Security. The community insulation programme began in 1981–82, but figures for employment and social security payments which were taken up by community insulation projects in 1981–82 and 1982–83 are not available.

  4 Provisional.

  5 Provision.

  Electricity Industry (Privatisation)
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what further proposals for the electricity industry he has to ensure the continuing existence of the national grid.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The benefits of the national grid will be maintained. It will be established as a separate company owned by the distribution companies who will have the statutory obligation to supply. As the holder of the transmission licence it will have a clear statutory duty to develop and maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economical system of electricity transmission.
  328
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy who will pay for the costs and major risks of the nuclear programme, after the privatisation of electricity.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Government will be taking powers in the Electricity Bill to enable them to contribute towards certain unforeseen nuclear back end costs. All other nuclear costs and risks will be shared, as they are now, between the company and the customer.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what quantities of plutonium originated at the Hunterston Magnox reactors have been exported to the United States under the 1958 mutual defence agreement on atomic energy, as amended in 1959.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Plutonium produced in the generating boards' Magnox reactors was consigned to the United States before 1971 under the United States/United Kingdom defence agreement and, as stated by the then Prime Minister on 21 April 1964 at columns 1097-98, has been used by the United States for civil purposes. Because of the barter arrangements under which plutonium was consigned, it would not be in the national interest to publish the figures.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportions of the plutonium created in the Magnox reactors at Hunterston since they were commissioned are now(a) still at the reactor site in spent fuel, (b) at Sellafield in unreprocessed spent fuel, (c) in separate form in store at Sellafield, (d) re-used in the United Kingdom civil or research nuclear fuel, (e) exported under safeguards and (f) exported without safeguards.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the annual plutonium figures published by my Department on 13 October 1988, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy to ensure that provision for the privatisation of present Electricity Board Magnox reactors includes assurances that no plutonium owned by or created in reactors operated by private companies can be used for military purposes under any circumstances, including those encompassed by national security requirements.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Following privatisation, plutonium will continue to be handled as securely as it is at present. All existing controls on the export and transport of nuclear material will continue to apply. In addition, all civil nuclear material will continue to remain subject to Euratom safeguards and to the terms of the United Kingdom/Euratom/IAEA safeguards agreement. The Government have no plans to transfer any of this material to defence use.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how often the Central Electricity Generating Board provides information on the isotopic quality of its plutonium to Euratom.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Information on the isotopic composition of plutonium contained in CEGB irradiated fuel is reported to Euratom at the beginning of the month following its dispatch from the power station concerned.
  329
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what physical verification of plutonium is conducted by Euratom safeguards inspectors at the material balance area 3 at British Nuclear Fuels Limited, Sellafield.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The main elements of the safeguards inspection arrangements for Sellafield agreed with Euratom were given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Maclean) on 4 June 1986 at columns 594-95.

  Spent Magnox Fuel
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of spent Magnox fuel from Hunterston reprocessed at Sellafield was co-processed with spent fuel from the military reactors at Calder Hall and Chapelcross.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The co-processing of civil and non-civil material at Sellafield has been phased out. Since 1986, separate civil arid non-civil reprocessing operations have been carried out sequentially, rather than simultaneously.

  VAT
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessments he has made as to the likely effect on(a) his Department's capital building programme and (b) the rent the Department will pay under occupational leases, of implementation of the European Court of Justice's judgment on value added tax on non domestic buildings.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The Department does not have a capital building programme. It is not possible to estimate the effect of the judgment before landlords have decided whether to exercise their option of charging VAT on rents.

  Advanced Gas-Cooled Reactors
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board; and if they reviewed the board's plans to overcome its current operating problems with advanced gas-cooled reactors.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend and I meet regularly with the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board and discuss a wide range of issues. The board has work in hand which is aimed at overcoming the operating problems of the AGR's.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what estimates he has of(a) the costs incurred by the Central Electricity Generating Board directly because of the necessity to close down each of the Heysham and Hartlepool reactors for a period of several days before refuelling is undertaken, (b) the nett loss of efficiency of these reactors because of this requirement, (c) the total losses of generation and (d) the costs associated therewith to date; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what was the original design intent as to whether the advanced gas cooled reactors at Heysham A and Hartlepool are to be capable of refuelling whilst in a full operational condition; what is the current operational intent; and if he will make a statement.
  330
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is an operational matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Energy Saving
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish a guide to energy-saving schemes proposed by individual electricity boards.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  This is a matter for the area boards.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what volumes of carbon dioxide gas(a) in pure form and (b) radioactively contaminated have been discharged from each of the Central Electricity Generating Board magnox advanced gas-cooled reactor and nuclear plants, respectively, in each year since 1979; and if he will list in the Official Report the volumes and dates of the gas releases;

  (2) what estimate he has made of the contribution to the greenhouse effect of gas build-up from carbon dioxide released from the coolant circuits of nuclear power plants in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  These are matters for the CEGB. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what will be the cost to public funds of decommissioning the nuclear plants at Calderhall and Chapelcross.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The decommissioning of the nuclear power plants at Calderhall and Chapelcross is the responsibility of the operator, British Nuclear Fuels plc. To the extent that Government programmes have benefited from the operation of these plants Government will contribute an appropriate share towards the costs of decommissioning.

  Argon 41
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has on the half-life of argon 41; what types of radiation argon 41 emits; and what are their energy levels.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I am advised by the National Radiological Protection Board that the radioisotope Argon 41 has a half-life of 1·83 hours. The energies of its principal emissions are:

  beta particles:
  1·198 mega electronvolts

  gamma rays:
  1·294 mega electronvolts

  Electricity Charges
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will publish figures in the Official Report showing the domestic charge for a unit of electricity as a percentage of the price charged to large industrial users in the United Kingdom and West Germany for the latest period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  From the Electricity Council "Survey of International Prices", a copy of which is
  331
  available in the Library, the latest information comparing prices in England and Wales with West Germany is as follows:

  Pence/KWh

  Domestic price

  Industrial price

  Domestic as percentage of industrial

  England and Wales

  6·81

  3·37

  202

  West Germany

  9·41

  4·43

  212

  Notes:
  1. The domestic price is for a consumer with an annual requirement of 3,300 KWhrs.
  2. The industrial price is for a large consumer with an annual maximum demand of 10 MW at a load of 80 per cent.
  3. The comparison is of prices as at 1 July 1988.

  Disabled Persons (Stall)
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what percentage of his Department's staff are classed as disabled.

  Mr. Parkinson
  At 1 December 1988 1.15 per cent. of the staff of my Department were registered disabled persons.

  Magnox Plant, Sellafield
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether, in the past or currently, the British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. Magnox fuel reprocessing plant at Sellafield has been utilised for the production of the reprocessing or irradiated fuels to yield fissile plutonium for the atomic weapons programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The facility referred to handles materials for civil and defence purposes as required. Any defence work would be conducted separately from the civil programme.

  Power Stations
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list those redundant Central Electricity Generating Board power stations thought to be capable of being recommissioned.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Gas and Electricity Prices
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the average price paid(a) per therm of gas and (b) per kilowatt hour of electricity by domestic consumers in Britain in 1979, 1987 and 1988 at constant prices deflated by the retail prices index.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The average prices paid by domestic consumers in Great Britain, deflated to 1987 constant prices using the retail prices index, are shown in the following table. Data for this year is not yet available.

  Electricity pence per kilowatt hour

  Gas1 pence per therm

  1979

  5·35

  1979–80

  33·6

  1987

  5·50

  1987–88

  41·7

  332
  1 Prices for gas are available only for years ended 31 March.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the annual cost of heating a small semi-detached standardised house in England, Scotland and Wales by(a) gas, (b) electricity, (c) coal and (d) oil in 1979 and 1987; and what are the projected costs for 1988.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) on Monday 7 November 1988 at columns 22-24; this provided the costs of heating a standardised two bedroom house in four regions of the United Kingdom as at April 1988. The four regions were, the West Country, the South-East, the North-East and Scotland. Comparative figures for Wales as of the same date are as follows:

  Calculated costs of heating a two bedroom house by fuel in Wales

  Gas £

  Electricity £

  Coal £

  Oil £

  115-200

  133-245

  123-230

  95-165

  (190-280)

  (205-320)

  (265-370)

  (156-225)

  Figures in brackets include water heating.

  Indices showing the change in the average United Kingdom costs of heating a house with different fuels (taking April 1988 as 100) measured in real terms are as follows:

  Indices of real energy costs domestic sector (April 1988=100)

  Gas

  Electricity

  Coal

  Oil

  1979

  84

  97

  92

  115

  1987

  105

  100

  105

  114

  1988 (April)

  100

  100

  100

  100

  Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Harwell
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether(a) all buildings and (b) all nuclear materials stored or processed at the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Harwell have been under full safeguards by (i) the International Atomic Energy Agency and (ii) Euratom since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  All civil nuclear material in the United Kingdom is subject to Euratom safeguards and the terms of the United Kingdom/Euratom/IAEA safeguards agreement. Harwell carries out contract R and D work for MOD which involves the presence of unsafeguarded material. This is entirely consistent with the United Kingdom's international safeguards obligations. The details cannot be disclosed for national security reasons.

  Molten Salt Fast Burner Reactor
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what research has been conducted on the molten salt fast burner reactor.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  There has been no significant research on this subject in the United Kingdom.

  Inertial Confinement Fusion Technology
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what evaluation has been made of the problems of safeguarding inertial confinement fusion technology against diversion to military use.
  333
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My Department does not fund research into inertial confinement fusion technology.

  Fiddler's Ferry Power Station
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has about current proposals for the erection of the desulphurisation plant at Fiddler's Ferry power station; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Piper Alpha
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has reached a final decision on the abandonment programme for Piper Alpha.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  As I told the House on 30 November at column 757, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had, that morning decided that subject to conditions, he was prepared to approve, under section 4 of the Petroleum Act 1987, the abandonment programme for Piper Alpha submitted by Occidental and its co-venturers. This proposed the use of explosive charges to topple the remains of the installation outwards on to the sea bed, away from the existing pile of debris, leaving at least 75m of clear water above all remains.

  I also explained that the co-venturers had the right under the Petroleum Act to make written representations about the proposed conditions. They have now informed my right hon. Friend that they do not wish to make representations and he has approved their programme.

  The conditions attached to my right hon. Friend's approval include requirements for surveys of the toppled remains and surrounding sea bed to establish the position of debris and to monitor for leakage of oil or gas. They also require sediment samples to be obtained and examined for the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and radioactivity. The conditions provide for repetition of these surveys and of sediment sampling at such times as the Secretary of State may subsequently direct. They also provide for debris to be moved or removed as he may direct, for any leakage of oil or gas to be sealed to his satisfaction and for steps to be taken to deal with any unacceptable levels of pollution.

  The installation was so badly damaged by the fire and explosions of 6 July as to be beyond preservation. If it is not toppled in a controlled way its collapse is inevitable, and could occur soon but probably during the coming winter. If it does collapse under natural forces, it is likely to fall inwards upon existing debris rendering any further removal or recovery operations impossibly difficult and dangerous and creating a serious hazard to shipping, as it would lie just below the surface.

  To take the platform down piece by piece would mean first removing the remaining module. Because of the precarious condition of the module itself, and of the structure supporting it, Occidental and its co-venturers submitted, and the Department's safety directorate accepts, that such an attempt would involve unacceptable hazard to the personnel involved.

  The possibility that a toppling operation might destroy evidence which would otherwise assist the technical investigation or the public inquiry has been carefully considered also. However, the visible remains have been
  334
  inspected and it seems unlikely that any useful evidence would be lost. The toppled structure in its final position should not make access to the central debris pile, and such evidence as it may contain, any more difficult than is already the case. Toppling the jacket would however eliminate a hazard which could otherwise hamper diving and other work on the existing debris. Both Lord Cullen and the Procurator Fiscal, have been advised of Occidental's proposal, and neither has any objection in principle.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Magistrates
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Attorney-General how many full-time stipendiary magistrates were assigned to the courts on 1 January of each year from 1985 to 1988, inclusive, and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The number of full-time stipendiary magistrates on 1 January in each of the following years was:

  Year

  Number

  1985

  60

  1986

  62

  1987

  60

  1988

  61

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Attorney-General how many acting stipendiary magistrates were assigned to the courts on 1 January of each year from 1985 to 1988, inclusive; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The number of persons approved to sit as acting stipendiary magistrates on 1 January in each of the following years was:

  Year

  Number

  1985

  91

  1986

  69

  1987

  71

  1988

  68

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the responsibilities of a branch Crown prosecutor; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The responsibilities of a branch Crown prosecutor will vary depending on the characteristics of the branch for which he is responsible and the duties delegated to him by the chief Crown prosecutor for the area. They will include responsibility for the management of staff and other resources within the branch, and responsibility for all casework allocated to the branch.

  A branch Crown prosecutor may have responsibility for some 10 to 35 lawyers and a similar number of support staff. The additional responsibility involved in running a large branch is recognised by a higher Civil Service grading and by support from assistant branch Crown prosecutor posts.

  The numbers of staff managed by branch Crown prosecutors and the grading of their duties are currently the subject of internal review.
  335
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will set out the scale of salaries for a branch Crown prosecutor(a) in London, (b) in the shire counties, and (c) in the metropolitan counties; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  In London and most metropolitan areas branch Crown prosecutors posts are held by officers at grade 5 level; elsewhere they are held by officers at grade 6 level. The relevant salary scales for all areas except the shire counties of Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire are as follows:

  Grade 5

  effective from

  1 October 1988

  1 April 1989

  27,087

  28,170

  28,154

  29,280

  29,255

  30,425

  30,3871

  31,6021

  31,5362

  32,8262

  32,7842

  34,0952

  23,0532

  35,4152

  35,3712

  36,7862

  Grade 6

  19,905

  21,633

  20,801

  22,606

  22,715

  23,624

  24,805

  25,797

  27,0871

  28,1701

  28,1542

  29,2802

  29,2552

  30,4252

  30,3872

  31,6022

  31,5632

  32,8262

  Grade 6 branch Crown prosecutors in the shire areas of Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire are paid at the following rate:

  effective from

  1 October 1988

  1 April 1989

  22,226

  23,624

  23,226

  24,686

  24,805

  25,797

  27,087

  28,170

  28,1541

  29,2801

  29,2552

  30,4252

  30,3872

  31,6022

  31,5632

  32,8262

  32,7842

  34,0952

  London weighting allowance is payable where appropriate.

  1 Scale maximum.

  2 Performance points.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the level of London weighting allowance given to a branch of Crown prosecutor; if there are any plans to review the present position; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The relevant scales of London weighting allowance payable to branch Crown prosecutors are as follows:

  £per annum

  Inner London

  1,750

  Intermediate London

  1,000

  Outer London

  725

  Levels of London weighting are determined centrally for the Civil Service as a whole and are subject to regular review.

HEALTH

  Midwives
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress of the midwives' regrading exercise.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The grading outcomes which I published on 28 November show that midwives have benefited even more than nurses from the new structure. Nine out of ten staff midwives have received increases of around 25 per cent. more. Three out of four midwifery sisters have received increases of at least 16 per cent., or £1,925. The average value to midwives of this year's award following the regrading is over 20 per cent. Midwives have now been told their new grades and the vast majority received the new rates of pay in their November pay packets. Back pay from April should be paid before Christmas.

  At my meeting with the Royal College of Midwives on 7 December I agreed to repeat to health authorities previous guidance on particular issues affecting grading in order to help inform some appeals.

  Incontinence Pads
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice has been given to district health authorities concerning the supply of incontinence pads to very dependent elderly people in both local authority and private residential nursing homes.

  Mrs. Currie
  Health authorities have discretion to supply incontinence pads to people living in residential care homes. They were advised in 1974 that they might provide pads free of charge for the residents of such homes but not for patients in private nursing homes.

  Cervical Smear Tests
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the current average waiting times for women in North Staffordshire district health authority waiting for the results of cervical smear tests.

  Mrs. Currie
  The current backlog of cervical smears in north Staffordshire is equivalent to 4-5 weeks' work. This is a substantial improvement in the backlog which peaked at three months in January. Two additional part-time screening staff were recruited last summer, and the DHA will continue to send some smears to a private laboratory in Birmingham until waiting times have been further reduced.

  Pre-school Playgroups
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will detail the percentage of under five-year-olds in pre-school playgroups in each local authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  We do not have information in exactly the form requested. The available information relates to the number of places in playgroups and the table gives the percentage of the population aged under five years for each local authority in England.
  337

  Places in playgroups as a percentage of the population aged under five in each local authority in England at 31 March 1987

  Local Authority

  Places in playgroups as a percentage of the population aged under five

  England

  13·8

  Cleveland

  8·0

  Cumbria

  16·3

  Durham

  11·2

  Northumberland

  18·4

  Gateshead

  8·8

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  10·4

  North Tyneside

  6·1

  South Tyneside

  2·7

  Sunderland

  6·7

  Humberside

  10·8

  North Yorkshire

  21·5

  Barnsley

  10·0

  Doncaster

  4·4

  Rotherham

  8·8

  Sheffield

  11·9

  Bradford

  8·4

  Calderdale

  15·0

  Kirklees

  9·2

  Leeds

  11·6

  Wakefield

  6·4

  Cheshire

  12·8

  Lancashire

  11·8

  Bolton

  5·7

  Bury

  16·0

  Manchester

  6·1

  Oldham

  10·1

  Rochdale

  9·0

  Salford

  6·6

  Stockport

  11·8

  Tameside

  7·8

  Trafford

  15·3

  Wigan

  13·1

  Knowsley

  6·3

  Liverpool

  8·2

  St. Helens

  17·5

  Sefton

  6·8

  Wirral

  15·1

  Hereford and Worcester

  20·4

  Shropshire

  17·4

  Staffordshire

  12·6

  Warwickshire

  13·5

  Birmingham

  11·4

  Coventry

  12·2

  Dudley

  10·3

  Sandwell

  6·2

  Solihull

  11·6

  Walsall

  13·6

  Wolverhampton

  9·2

  Derbyshire

  12·0

  Leicestershire

  15·5

  Lincolnshire

  19·0

  Northamptonshire

  15·9

  Nottinghamshire

  9·5

  Bedfordshire

  14·0

  Berkshire

  13·4

  Buckinghamshire

  19·7

  Cambridgeshire

  14·5

  Essex

  18·2

  Hertfordshire

  14·2

  Norfolk

  20·2

  Oxfordshire

  19·6

  Suffolk

  16·8

  Camden

  10·9

  Greenwich

  9·7

  Hackney

  6·8

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  7·8

  Islington

  9·8

  338

  Local Authority

  Places in playgroups as a percentage of the population aged under five

  Kensington and Chelsea

  6·0

  Lambeth

  6·2

  Lewisham

  9·0

  Southwark

  7·5

  Tower Hamlets

  4·9

  Wandsworth

  8·2

  Westminster

  9·7

  City of London

  11·0

  Barking and Dagenham

  9·3

  Barnet

  14·3

  Bexley

  16·6

  Brent

  6·8

  Bromley

  24·1

  Croydon

  15·0

  Ealing

  8·4

  Enfield

  7·6

  Haringey

  6·7

  Harrow

  15·3

  Havering

  14·5

  Hillingdon

  15·4

  Hounslow

  9·4

  Kingston upon Thames

  10·1

  Merton

  10·8

  Newham

  3·2

  Redbridge

  18·8

  Richmond upon Thames

  23·1

  Sutton

  14·7

  Waltham Forest

  7·2

  Dorset

  19·7

  Hampshire

  17·7

  Isle of Wight

  22·7

  Kent

  18·2

  Surrey

  20·7

  East Sussex

  17·7

  West Sussex

  22·7

  Wiltshire

  19·8

  Avon

  13·5

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  21·0

  Devon

  17·4

  Gloucestershire

  22·4

  Somerset

  21·0

  Note: 1Some figures have been estimated.

  Disabled Persons (Staff)
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of his Department's staff are classed as disabled.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We do not have separate figures for the Department of Health but the June 1988 percentage for the Department of Health and Social Security was 1·42 per cent.

  Dentistry (Surgical Gloves)
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has given to general dental practitioners on the wearing of surgical gloves by dentists and their staff.

  Mrs. Currie
  The chief dental officer of the Department issued guidance to dentists in April 1986 which stressed the importance of following high standards of cross-infection control when treating all patients, including wearing operating gloves when treating patients.
  339
  He wrote to dentists again in May 1988 reminding them of the importance of wearing gloves to ensure an effective barrier against infection for themselves, their staff and their patients.

  Maternity Care
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will make a statement on the provision of maternity care in Southport, Lancashire, under the National Health Service.

  Mrs. Currie
  Maternity care in the Southport and Formby health authority is provided at the Christina Hartley maternity hospital which has 35 obstetric beds and 11 special care baby cots. My hon. Friend may wish to contact the chairman of the district health authority for further information about local maternity services.

  Packaged Food
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action Her Majesty's Government have taken on the World Health Organisation recommendation in February that cooked food in sealed packages found to contain listeria monocytogenes should be withdrawn.

  Mrs. Currie
  No action is necessary. Well established procedures already exist to effect the withdrawal of such foods.

  Leeds Western District Health Authority
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to announce the appointment of a new chairman for Leeds western district health authority.

  Mr. Mellor
  Very soon.

  Radiotherapy Machines
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make it his policy to establish a national system for checking and monitoring within each health authority the correct calibration and performance of radiotherapy machines in addition to the monitoring by the Health and Safety Executive to be implemented by all departments of physics and radiation;

  (2) if there is a national system for setting up and monitoring the performance of cancer radioactive treatment machines which includes the initial calibration calculation;

  (3) if he will issue guidance to district health authorities as to their obligations to take full responsibility for the standards of work carried out by their various departments including physics and radiotherapy and as to the different responsibilities in this area and of the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mrs. Currie
  It is a prime responsibility of health authorities to ensure the safe and effective operation of all departments. This is over and above any specific statutory responsibilities under regulations enforced by inspectors of the Health and Safety Executive. In the light of the recent report by Sir Bryan Thwaites on the regrettable lapses at the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital, we will be issuing further guidance on the calibration of radiotherapy machines which we will expect all health authorities to implement.

  Health Authorities (Women General Managers)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Heath if he will list(a) the regional health authorities and (b) the district health authorities that have women general managers.

  Mr. Mellor
  South Western regional health authority has a woman general manager. The following district health authorities also have women general managers:

  Central Nottinghamshire

  North Bedfordshire

  Parkside

  Islington

  Waltham Forest

  Haringey

  Wandsworth

  Rochdale

  Nurses
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the average number of years worked part-time in the National Health Service by nurses after qualification.

  Mr. Mellor
  The answer that I gave to the hon. Member's question on 25 November at column 60 included both whole-time and part-time working because individual nurses and midwives move between whole-time and part-time working during their careers. The information cannot be provided separately for whole-time and part-time service.

  Medical Care, Bolton
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set up an inquiry into the alleged failure of medical care in Bolton that resulted in the death of Craig Jackson and jeopardised the life of Matthew Catton.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 2 December 1988]: I am aware of the local concern generated by these two cases and I regret the distress they have caused to the families of Craig Jackson and Matthew Catton. But at this stage there are no obvious national implications in the approach to their treatment which would justify my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State holding an inquiry.

  Bolton health authority and the Bolton family practitioner committee will be considering what investigations into the cases are appropriate. The parents of both boys can also make use of the complaints procedure of the health authority and family practitioner committee if they feel it appropriate.

  Premium Smokeless Fuels
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had about the high costs of premium smokeless fuels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have been asked to reply.

  The particular prices of domestic coals are a matter for the coal merchants concerned. But in general smokeless fuels are more expensive than bituminous house coals, partly because of their greater calorific value and, in the case of manufactured fuels, partly because considerable processing costs are incurred.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Message from the Queen
The Earl of Airlie: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a Message from Her Majesty the Queen, signed by her own hand. The Message is as follows:
"I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament".

Unattributable Press Briefings
3.1 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards unattributable press briefings.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, unattributable briefings are one of the techniques widely employed in this country and elsewhere to communicate information.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, while accepting that very clear statement by the noble Lord the Leader of the House, may I ask whether in his opinion there have not been cases recently when matters have been raised at these briefings which should more properly have been raised in the first instance in Parliament? Further, may I ask the noble Lord whether there have not been cases where matters have apparently been raised at these briefings which have subsequently been denied by the Government, thus causing confusion in the public mind?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the prime source of information from the Government is, and should remain, Statements and Answers to Parliament; but the lobby system of unattributable briefings supplements that flow of information. I remind the noble Lord that it is welcomed, as I understand it, by the press. As regards the second part of the noble Lord's question, my answer is that I do not agree with him.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, notwithstanding what the noble Lord the Leader of the House has said, is it not the case that there is considerable concern about the alleged misuse of the lobby system? Would it not therefore be in everyone's interest if there were a reconsideration of the ground rules, including a review of the role of the Prime Minister's press secretary?
Lord Belstead:My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. It is interesting to note that in today's edition of The Times there is a very good example of unattributable briefing from Shadow Cabinet sources about what happened at the Shadow Cabinet last Wednesday. All parties use unattributable briefing. I believe that is something that is welcomed by the press, and I hope it will continue.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I was not contesting the case he made generally on unattributable briefing? Is he aware that I am saying that there is considerable concern about the alleged misuse of the position at the present time? Therefore, would it not be advisable, in order to remove the concern, to have a good look at the ground rules?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, if he would like to give me a specific case I would find it easier to answer.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, is it not the case that two leading newspapers now refuse to take part in the lobby system? Does not that destroy the Government's case that the system is universally popular? Further, can the noble Lord tell us how it is that the details of the Statement about British Shipbuilders were all contained in yesterday's morning newspaper when the noble Lord maintains that the main means of communicating information should be through Statements in the House?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, in answer to the second part of the noble Lord's question, I would say that I did not know about that incident. I deprecate that that should have occurred. The answer to the first part of his question—an important question, I think—is that, yes, indeed, it is the case that two newspapers do not attend the No. 10 briefings. However, I understand that those two newspapers are nonetheless ready to receive non-attributable briefings by government departments and others.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, when these briefings are taped, can the noble Lord ensure that the machine is in working order?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that that is a highly desirable step.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that it would be a sad day for both parties if banana skins became an unattributable part of our diet?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I take on board what my noble friend says.

Universities Funding Council
3.5 p.m.
Lord Beloff Lord Beloff asked Her Majesty's Government.
Whether the Universities Funding Council set up under Section 131 of the Education Reform Act 1988 shall be bound by Sections 131(7) and 134(3) of that Act.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the UFC will, of course, be bound by these sections and all other relevant statutory provisions.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. Will he also confirm to the House that the UFC will be bound by two undertakings given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in the course of the passage of the Bill when he said:
"I confirm now that our annual settlement of overall public support is entirely independent of university success in raising more private funds".—[Official Report, 16/5/88; col. 149.]
On 25th July the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor further said that such conditions as the funding councils will impose,
"may not relate to income received from sources other than the councils".—[Official Report, 25/7/88; col. 35.]
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, these matters were discussed at great length and in great depth during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House. I can only say that the whole point of Sections 131(7) and 134(3) of the Education Reform Act is to emphasise that universities will remain free to attract and use funds from private sources without risk of financial penalty.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the draft financial memorandum between the department and the funding council will require the council to keep under review the level of balances of universities without any qualification, or any reservation, or indeed any reference to moneys which universities may have, otherwise than by way of grant? Does the Minister think that that is consistent with the provisions in the Act to which the Question relates?
Viscount Davidson: Yes, my Lords. The Government are well aware of the concern expressed by the CVCP. I understand that a meeting is to be held next week between the department and the CVCP to discuss the points which have been raised. That is one of the points that will be discussed.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some universities are a good deal richer than others, and that some are capable of raising £200 million while others have difficulty in raising 200 pence? Would it not be reasonable for the UFC to take account of the difference in funds available to universities, and in particular whether that difference is not itself a reflection of the relative academic qualities of the universities?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am sure that the CVCP will be taking that into account.

Capital Punishment: European Protocol
3.9 p.m.
Lord Hooson Lord Hooson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to sign the Sixth Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and, if not, what are their reasons for not so doing.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): No, my Lords. The question of the reintroduction of capital punishment is left to a free vote in Parliament. It would be inappropriate for the Government to enter into an international agreement which pre-empted such a vote.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, as we abolished the death penalty for most offences in this country in 1965, and as the protocol allows for the emergencies of war or the imminence of war, why does this country not sign the protocol, so that it effectively would bring us into line with other European nations and not invite an annual debate on the matter?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have just tried to explain to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, why the Government have not done so. All decisions concerning the death penalty have always been by custom the result of a free vote in Parliament. If the Government were to accede to the request to sign the protocol it would mean that they would pre-empt the right of Parliament to change its mind if it so chose. We do not believe that that is right.
I would just point out to the noble Lord that he was quite right. The death penalty was abolished in 1965 for most cases. It still applies for treason under the Treason Act of 1814 and for piracy under the Piracy Act of 1837 and for certain treasonable offences under the armed forces Act of 1871. It is also still an offence to slay the Lord Chancellor.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, that is not the case. It applies only to the Lord Chancellor in his place and in the exercise of his office, which would add a new risk to the occupancy of the Woolsack.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is a matter of detail which would have to be decided when the unfortunate case, if it should occur, arose. I would remind the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, who is only too well versed in the matter and doubtless when he took upon himself the responsibilities and duties of Lord Chancellor he found out exactly what he might have been letting himself in for, that it became an offence under the 1351 Treason Act and a hanging offence by virtue of the 1814 Act, but I am not certain whether it was a capital offence between 1351 and 1814.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I gather that the situation was worsened when power was given to the Secretary of State to behead the offender against the Lord Chancellor. I have little doubt that the Government are not moving in that direction.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think that either option would be fairly disagreeable. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, is quite right; the Government are not moving in that direction.

Housing Condition Survey
3.12 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take about the housing conditions which were highlighted in the Department of the Environment's housing condition survey 1986.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the English House Condition Survey showed that less than 3 per cent. of the stock now lacks basic amenities compared with 5 per cent. in 1981. The proportion of the stock which is classified as unfit has been reduced from 6·3 per cent. to 5·6 per cent. Disrepair has not increased. The results of the survey are encouraging, although we must not of course be complacent. That is why we are seeking to target resources more effectively to those areas that most need it.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that reply. Naturally we welcome the slightly improved situation and hope that the rate of improvement continues to accelerate. However, the Minister must be aware that the National Home Improvement Council and the AMA, after reading the report, have reached the conclusion that in order to deal with the housing stock on a national basis both in the public sector and the private sector over the next ten years between £50 billion and £85 billion will need to be spent. Have the Government any plans to pump more money into housing in order to correct those deficiencies?
The Earl of Caithness: Yes, my Lords. There will be considerably more money. As the noble Lord will be aware the gross provision for local authorities is up for the fourth successive year to £3,303 million for 1989–90 which is a 13·5 per cent. increase on this year.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does the Minister recall that a few weeks ago I asked him a question regarding the effect of the increase in the bank rate on the house building programme? Is the Minister aware that the house building figures are now taking a downward turn and in some areas remaining static and the bank rate is having its effect? Will the Minister plead with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and dissuade him from eliminating tax relief on improvement loans and from means testing of those who apply for improvement loans? Does he not consider that that would have an extremely adverse effect on the improvement programme which I agree for a time was running extremely well?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I hope that the improvement grants to which the noble Lord refers will be revised with the approval of your Lordships' House so that the resources that we devote to them can be better targeted. That surely is the right way to use public sector finance.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the Minister consider convening a conference of all appropriate bodies to
672
consider the implications of this very important survey?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, a lot of people have been consulted. All those who wanted to write to the department have had every opportunity to do so. Shortly we shall be consulting the other organisation, Parliament.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that the survey highlights the poor condition of stock in the private rented sector? What do the Government intend to do about that?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the report shows that the private sector has had great difficulty in maintaining the quality of the stock to the standard to which we would have hoped. The Housing Act of 1988 which your Lordships helped to pass will allow the landlord to earn a reasonable return on new lettings and also contains strengthened powers for local authorities to act where properties are unfit or in serious disrepair.

Christmas Adjournment
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will adjourn for the Christmas Recess on Thursday 22nd December and return on Monday 16th January. The House will sit at 11 a.m. on Thursday 22nd December.

Southern Water Authority Bill
3.17 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 46 [Planning permission]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare)The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare) moved the following amendments:
Page 28, line 12, leave out ("Class XII in Schedule 1") and insert ("Part II in Schedule 2").
Page 28, line 13, leave out ("1977") and insert ("1988").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these are purely technical amendments. They arise from a revised Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 which has replaced the 1977 order mentioned in the bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—( The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Birmingham City Council Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

European Communities Committee: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Mackenzie-Stuart be appointed a member of the Select Committee.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

City of London (Spitalfields Market) Bill
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That this House do concur with the orders made by the Commons set out in their message of yesterday.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Mot
ion agreed to; and it was ordered that a message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Murder and Life Imprisonment: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Select Committee:

Ackner, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Nathan, L. (Chairman)

Platt of Writtle, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Windlesham, L.

That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee from time to time be printed and, if the Committee think fit, be delivered out;
That the Proceedings of the Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;
that the Committee have power to appoint Specialist Advisers;
that the Committee do meet on Monday 12th December at half-past four o'clock.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Statutory Instruments: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the last and longest Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee of seven Lords be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Commons to consider—

(1) Every instrument which is laid before each House of Parliament and upon which proceedings may be or might have been taken in either House of Parliament, in pursuant of an Act of Parliament; being

(a) a statutory instrument, or a draft of a statutory instrument;

(b) a scheme, or an amendment of a scheme, or draft thereof, requiring approval by statutory instrument;

(c) any other instrument (whether or not in draft), where the proceedings in pursuance of an Act of Parliament are proceedings by way of an affirmative resolution; or

(d) an order subject to special parliamentary procedure;

but excluding any Order in Council or draft Order in Council made or proposed to be made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974.

(2) Every general statutory instrument not within the foregoing classes, and not required to be laid before or to be subject to proceedings in the Commons only, but not including Measures under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 and instruments made under such Measures; with a view to determining whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of following grounds—

(i) that it imposes a charge on the public revenues or contains provisions requiring payments to be made to the Exchequer or any government department or to any local or public authority in consideration of any licence or consent or of any services to be rendered, or prescribes the amount of any such charge or payments;

(ii) that it is made in pursuance of any enactment containing specific provisions excluding it from challenge in the courts, either at all times or after the expiration of a specific period;

(iii) that it purports to have retrospective effect where the parent statute confers no express authority to so provide;

(iv) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in the publication or in the laying of it before Parliament;

(v) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in sending a notification under the proviso to subsection (1) of section 4 of the Statutory Instrument Act 1946, where an Instrument has come into operation before it has been laid before Parliament;

675

(vi) that there appears to be a doubt whether it is intra vires or that it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the statute under which it is made;

(vii) that for any special reasons its form or purport call for elucidation;

(viii) that its drafting appears to be defective; or

on any other ground which does not impinge on its merits or on the policy behind it, and to report their decision with the reasons thereof in any particular case.

That the Lords following, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, be named of the Committee:

Airedale, L.

Blatch, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Shaughnessy, L.

That two be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee have power to agree with the Committee appointed by the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.
That the Committee have power to appoint one or more Sub-Committees severally to join with any Sub-Committee or Sub-Committees appointed by the Committee appointed by the Commons: and to refer to such Sub-Committee or Sub-Committees any of the matters referred to the Committee.
That it be an instruction to the Committee that they do not consider any instrument which is directed by Act of Parliament to be laid before and to be subject to proceedings in the Commons only; and that the Committee do not join with the Committee appointed by the Commons in considering any such instrument.
That it be a further instruction to the Committee that, before reporting that the special attention of the House be drawn to any instrument, the Committee do afford to any Government department concerned therewith an opportunity of furnishing orally or in writing to them or to any Sub-Committee or the Committee such explanations as the department think fit.
That the Joint Committee have leave to report from time to time.
That the Committee do meet with the Committee appointed by the Commons on Tuesday 13th December at a quarter-past four o'clock.
—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and it was ordered that a message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Broadcasting and Terrorism
3.19 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That this House takes note of the directions given by the Home Secretary on 19th October last to the BBC and IBA to restrict the broadcasting of statements by Northern Ireland terrorist organisations and their apologists.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on 19th October I repeated the Statement which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made in another place about the directions which he proposed to give to the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Broadcasting Authority requiring them to refrain from broadcasting statements by Northern Ireland terrorist organisations and their apologists.
I was particularly encouraged on that occasion by the support which was given towards those measures by the noble Lords, Lord Mason of Barnsley and Lord Fitt. Both noble Lords have had extensive experience of the circumstances of Northern Ireland—politically and personally. And they will be aware of the degree of widespread concern about the activities of terrorist organisations and their supporters in Northern Ireland, including the apparent freedom which is provided to those organisations to ventilate their views on the airwaves and to seek support for their so-called cause. But it is correct that Parliament should have the opportunity of discussing what are—and I readily admit it—controversial decisions. That is the reason for today's debate.
The imposition of any restrictions upon broadcasting—irrespective of the merits of the case—is a very serious step. It was taken only after long and careful consideration by the Government. In deciding to take this action, the Government wanted to go only so far as to restrict direct broadcast statements by terrorist organisations and their supporters. It was limited action on our part. We did not want to suppress the reporting of events in Northern Ireland. Nor did we wish to suppress the reporting of terrorist activities. Those matters—just as much as others—are the meat and drink of life. However much we may dislike them, they need to be reported. It is in the public's interest that the public should be aware of what is taking place.
As a result, the directions do not restrict the second-hand reporting of events. The activities of these organisations, and the words which their spokesmen utter, can still be reported, just as they are in the written press. One Irish newspaper said, at the time when the directions were being issued:
"Sinn Fein are not being silenced . . . merely put in their place."
We should not, I think, be misled therefore by those who seek to make comparisons with the extensive restrictions—and even prevention—on reporting which exist in countries like South Africa. Those sorts of comparisons are in fact a distortion of the limited action which this Government are taking in order to protect the citizens of the United Kingdom from the intrusive and inflammatory voices of terrorism which some seek to convey by means of the broadcasting system.
In arriving at the decision to impose these restrictions, the Government concluded that those who live by the bomb and the gun—and those who support them—cannot in all reasonable circumstances be accorded exactly the same rights as are accorded to the rest of the population. This is a principle which Parliament has endorsed on many occasions.
In the particular case of broadcasting, the Government's view is that those who practise and support terrorism and violence should not be allowed direct access to radio and television screens in the United Kingdom. This is the essence of the Government's action. The same conclusion was reached some years ago by the Republic of Ireland in imposing similar restrictions there, which continue to be in force.
We are not extending these restrictions to the press, because it is the immediacy both of radio and particularly of television which has its own peculiar and immediate impact. It is hard to justify—and indeed, I do not think that one wishes to justify—the sight of people inciting or defending terrorism being projected into the living rooms of people in this country. It is neither wanted nor right. To those who say that this is a curtailment of the freedom of expression, I would suggest that any freedom carries its obligations. No amount of freedom can justify terrorism. None can justify its perpetration.
Second-hand reports in the press, on the other hand, do not have the same impact. And no restrictions will be placed on the reporting of statements by representatives of these organisations in the broadcast media either.
Your Lordships may ask: "Why is it necessary to take these measures?" There can be no doubt that the appearances of these spokesmen on television cause widespread offence. In the case of those in Northern Ireland, who are closer to the problem, the offensiveness is all the greater.
That is not surprising. Members of the public do not want to have the comfort and the privacy of their homes invaded by a spokesman for terrorism attempting to justify yet another atrocity. Nor do they wish to be subjected, through the powerful and intrusive medium of broadcasting, to propaganda and threats from the voices of terrorism. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that this is not what television and radio is for. Nor can we really accept that it was ever intended that the precious—and privileged, let usremember—resources of broadcasting should be used for this purpose. I hope that your Lordships will also agree that we do not want to see the fine tradition and reputation of British broadcasting sullied by the advocation of violence and terrorism.
But the degree of offence which is caused to the viewer by the appearances of these spokesmen was not the only reason for the Government's action. By preventing the appearance of these organisations on television, we are denying them a publicity vehicle from which they have previously received some considerable advantage. And I do not believe that the people of the United Kingdom will feel that they are
678
any the poorer for not seeing on their television sets an IRA, Sinn Fein or UDA spokesman addressing a rally of their supporters. Appearances on television have an uncanny knack of lending some kind of spurious authority and respectability to those who happen to be featured.
I should explain the two exemptions from the directions. One is for parliamentary proceedings. The other is for statements which are made during an election period.
In relation to parliamentary proceedings, we were concerned not to take any measures which might affect parliamentary privilege. We have had to have regard to the position of broadcasters in relation to parliamentary matters. Under the licence and agreement, the BBC is charged with providing an impartial account, day by day, of proceedings in both Houses of Parliament. It might be difficult for the corporation to carry out this requirement, particularly in respect of debates relating to Northern Ireland, if the restrictions were to apply to our proceedings.
A similar point applies in the case of elections. Under the Broadcasting Act, the IBA has a statutory duty to treat impartially matters of political or industrial controversy or matters concerning current public policy. The BBC has undertaken, in the annex to its licence and agreement, to fulfil a similar responsibility. In the Government's view, it would be possible to carry out this requirement fully in everyday circumstances since the notices would not prevent the broadcasters from indirect reporting of the statements or activities of the organisations concerned.
At an election period, though, it is different. The ability of candidates and their supporters to make a personal appearance on radio or television is crucial to balancing the interests of political parties and is important in projecting the views--and even the sight—of those who are seeking election. It is, after all, the basis of the broadcasting requirements under the Representation of the People Act.
The application of the restrictions, during an election period, would face the broadcasters with an insurmountable conflict between their legal duty to implement the notice and the requirements of impartial treatment of political controversy. I think that such a position would raise substantial legal difficulties.
For those reasons, therefore, we decided that a candidate who represents one of the organisations concerned, and his supporters, should be free to make personal appearances on radio and television during election time, provided —and this is an important qualification—that their statements are made in support of the candidate and his constituency contest.
There are some who have suggested that the directions are complicated and confusing. I do not think that that is so. The terms of the directions were as clear as we could make them, and we have since provided the broadcasting authorities with guidance about them.
There will, of course, be occasions when the broadcasters, as they do now, will have to use their

679
judgment in deciding whether or not to include particular material in a programme. One such issue concerns the question of whether a person is representing a named organisation at the time when he appears on a programme. It is true that a member of an organisation cannot be held to represent it in all his daily activities.
The key to the issue is the word "represent". When a councillor is speaking in Northern Ireland, it is not the subject about which he is talking which will decide whether his speech can be broadcast directly, but whether he is talking on behalf of one of the named organisations. A Sinn Fein councillor, for example, who is talking about council matters on behalf of his group, will not be allowed direct access. There will be borderline cases where this distinction will require careful judgment—just as there are now—but in practice, in the vast majority of cases, I do not think that the decision will be too difficult.
Some have suggested that the measures are a major incursion into the rights of freedom of expression. I do not think that that is so since broadcasters remain free to report the activities of these organisations and free to report the actual words which are used by their representatives. It is only direct broadcast statements by these representatives which are being restricted.
Others have said that the measures do not go far enough. They would like the Government to go so far as proscribing Sinn Fein. But we believe that proscription is an appropriate measure only in respect of organisations who are actively and primarily involved in terrorism. In this context, the status of Sinn Fein and the Ulster Defence Association are kept carefully under review by the Government.
The argument has also been put that by depriving the terrorists of one weapon, namely, the ability to broadcast, we are giving them another—and a larger one—namely, the ability to claim that they have been singled out for peculiar and discriminating treatment.
It has been suggested that we are giving them a propaganda advantage across the world, which will outweigh the disadvantage of being excluded from our television screens. I am not persuaded that this is the case. An Irish American or an Irish Australian, who is already sympathetic to the IRA, will not have his opinion changed one way or the other by these measures. What we are doing is no different from the action which has been taken by Dublin governments, of various political complexions, for many years past.
Critics of the restrictions have said that the public should be able to see and to hear these spokesmen for what they are. But the public are well aware of what the terrorists and their fellow travellers stand for. Our contention is that it is simply not acceptable that the public platform of television and radio should be used—and abused—in a way which causes offence to the vast majority of people. It encourages violence; it disseminates unrest; and it is an abuse of public facility in a way which is both unacceptable and inappropriate.
Nor should terrorists be allowed to continue to draw support and sustenance as a result of having access to the radio and television, and to use these facilities in order to propagate terrorism.
There is one further aspect of the matter which needs to be taken into account. It is not simply that people are affronted by the direct access of men of violence, and supporters of violence, to television and radio. The direct access to the broadcasting media gives those who use it a spurious authority and respectability. They have taken advantage of these opportunities, not just to persuade but to frighten. They expoit and manipulate the media in order to deliver indirect threats. We believe not only that this is wrong, but that people do not want it.
I hope therefore that your Lordships will appreciate that the measures that we have taken are not simply just to protect the viewer from the offensiveness of the appearance of these spokesmen. The measures will also deny an easy propaganda platform to the voices of violence. They will prevent terrorists and those who support them from using the broadcasting media in order to deliver threats direct into the homes of law-abiding people in the United Kingdom. It was clearly necessary for the Government to bring to an end the exploitation of the broadcasting media in this way. I hope that it will receive your Lordships' approval.
This decision is a serious one and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has said that he intends to keep its operation under careful review. I hope nevertheless that your Lordships will understand the reasons for the Government's action and will endorse the measures which have been taken. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the directions given by the Home Secretary on 19th October last to the BBC and IBA to restrict the broadcasting of statements by Northern Ireland terrorist organisations and their apologists.—(Earl Ferrers.)
3.34 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, perhaps I may start by saying that we on these Benches understand and wholly share the disgust and the outrage caused by the terrorist organisations and their odious supporters. We sympathise deeply with the grief and distress of the victims and their community. We would do anything to damage and curtail their murderous activities.
However, when we use the weapon of banning the broadcasting of interviews, I believe that it has to satisfy two tests. The Minister said that freedom does not justify terrorism. I entirely agree. The method that one uses has to be justified on two grounds. First, will it be effective? Secondly, what are the consequences to our freedom? If it could be shown that it is in the public interest to restrict the media and that it would be effective in this way, we would have to consider it seriously. However, the ban fails the tests both of practice and of principle. The Home Secretary claimed that the ban was necessary because appearances by representatives of terrorist organisations—and the Minister has drawn attention to the fact—
"had caused…offence to viewers and listeners". [Official Report, Commons 19/10/88; col. 885.]

681
Yet I must point out that there is no real evidence, and no research has been done, to prove that such a draconian measure is merited. One cannot just go by either anecdotal evidence or the knowledge that people switching on television do not like or do not embrace what they see. There has to be something very much more before action like this is taken.
John Birt, the Deputy Director-General of the BBC, has reported that a recent programme which contained an interview with Gerry Adams—who was pressed very hard on this issue in the interview—was watched by over 2 million viewers and not a single complaint was registered by the BBC's duty office. Indeed, I am told by the BBC that more complaints are registered following the screening of IRA funerals in the news programmes which many people find repulsive.
My friends and I are opposed to the ban because we believe that in practice it simply will not achieve the ends that the Government have set for it. The Government obviously are trying in their own way to do the best they can in what they believe are difficult circumstances. But we, and I am sure other Members of your Lordships' House, do not believe that this is the right way to go about it; we believe that it is a dangerous way to go about it. In our view it represents a fundamental attack on the right to freedom of speech.
The ban prevents Northern Ireland terrorists or their supporters from making personal appearances on television or radio. The Home Secretary claimed that direct access gives those who use it an air and appearance of authority; and that was reinforced by the Minister just now. However, one can look at it the other way round. The ban does not prevent the opinions of terrorists' supporters being reported in the broadcast or print media. The Home Secretary went on to say that the ban represents a measure that can further help to protect a free democratic society from the evil of terrorism and its associations. Many of us feel that people are not so gullible. They do not need this protection. The truth is that the Government have allowed themselves to be manoeuvred into a position which permits the paramilitaries to claim that they are the victims—that they are the ones being denied access to the machinery of democracy. The appearance of authority has been firmly planted in the laps of terrorists who now claim that it is they who suffer from repression. That is the exact opposite of what any of us would like to happen.
Any pretence that this ban will be an effective weapon against terrorism is further undermined by the ambiguities and inconsistencies surrounding its implementation. Again the Minister drew attention to some of those. The ban will not apply during election periods. In other words, it will not apply when, following the Government's reasoning, I should have thought that it would matter most, and would therefore give an extra burst of publicity to such organisations during elections.
The Minister stated that the terms in which the guidelines for the elections are written will be as clear—these are his words—"as we can make them".
682
Obviously they cannot be very clear because the whole operation is rather confused. The ban applies to legal organisations as well as to illegal organisations. It could be said that this is perhaps its most illogical and undemocratic aspect. If the public are entitled to vote for a party—Sinn Fein is a legal party; it has not been proscribed—then surely they are entitled to hear that party's views broadcast.
I know that many of us find such views unpalatable, repugnant and indefensible, but we should allow them to be heard because freedom of belief and expression is the linchpin of our democracy. In interviews that have taken place in the past, though there have not been many, Sinn Fein either condemned themselves from their own mouths or they were pressed into virtual self-condemnation by the interviewers.
The terms of the ban are unclear. It seems that an interview with a member of Sinn Fein cannot be broadcast when the views of Sinn Fein are being represented, though, as was shown on the "Media Programme" recently, a picture of the interviewee can be shown with his lips moving and his words being spoken by an actor—even an actor with an Irish accent. If it were not so tragic, the situation would be high comedy.
At the same time, following clarification from the Government, it seems that Sinn Fein councillors can broadcast as local councillors as distinct from being members of Sinn Fein. Surely that is a piece of Irish schizophrenia if ever there was one. They therefore can be interviewed on purely local matters. The result is, as my right honourable friend Mr. Roy Hattersley said in another place:
"Sinn Fein will be allowed to represent itself as the caring guardian of local interests, but will not be cross-examined on its support for terrorism".—[Official Report, Commons, 2/11/88; col. 1087.]
The Government appear to have shot themselves in the foot over this matter, giving those who support terrorism a propaganda coup but at the same time throwing the broadcasters into confusion. The anger about the whole matter on the part of the broadcasting organisations and broadcasters could perhaps have been mitigated had the Government, before imposing the ban, discussed it with the broadcasters so that a less clumsy and less repressive mode of broadcasting behaviour might be found. Instead of that, the BBC was informed, of the ban the evening before the announcement was made public and the IBA was told on the morning of the announcement.
The Home Secretary claimed that the ban implied no criticism of the authorities. He said that broadcasters had a dangerous and unenviable task in reporting events in Northern Ireland. This step is no criticism of them. Therefore the broadcasters are doing no wrong. Indeed, both authorities, the BBC and the IBA, have rigorous systems of self-regulation for transmitting material which is concerned with terrorist activities. In 1971 the BBC decided that interviews with banned groups,
"should only be filmed and transmitted after the most serious consideration, and that the BBC should be seen to be clearly opposed to the indiscriminate methods of the extremists".
Commenting recently on the ban, David Nicholas, editor in chief of ITN, the independent news, said:

683
"Public opinion is more resolute than ever in its determination to defeat terrorism. This owes a lot to the full and free reporting of Northern Ireland, which has exposed terrorism for what it is."
The truth is that the ban was adopted hastily without any real thought of the effect it would have. In their indecent haste to rush this through to show that something is being done, the Government have created an ill-thought-out and potentially dangerous measure.
It means that broadcasters are to be told what they can and cannot transmit and the public are to hear a sanitised version of the political realities in Northern Ireland. I do not know whether noble Lords are aware that this has further far-flung effects as well. For some years I was a governor of the British Film Institute. I have seen copies of correspondence between the Home Secretary and the chairman of the IBA about archive material. The British Film Institute has in its archives hundreds of hours of material dating back to 1981 relating to Sinn Fein. It also has innumerable newsreels going back to 1916.
At present there is a complete state of uncertainty about what can be shown. The correspondence with the chairman of the IBA makes it quite clear that the Home Office also has not come to any definite conclusion, but the Home Secretary, writing to Lord Thomson, said he had been advised by his officials that in many cases the material could not be used. We have reached this stage as well and I find it extremely worrying.
Next week we shall be debating the broadcasting White Paper, the government plan to deregulate broadcasting. In his statement on the White Paper the Home Secretary said:
"We aim to ensure that viewers and listeners have greater freedom of choice from a more varied output of programmes".—[Official Report, Commons, 7/11/88; col. 30.]
What about the freedom of choice to hear all sides of a political argument? What about the freedom to challenge those who seek to justify terrorist activities? Why do the Government, who condemn the nanny state, judge people incapable of understanding the hypocrisy which lies behind terrorist explanations for the use of violence?
Causing offence is unpleasant, but it is not a satisfactory reason for imposing such draconian measures as this ban on broadcasters. Are we as a society to be protected from a knowledge of all that is unpleasant in this world? There are other very unpleasant things on radio and television showing great violence from which we are not, quite rightly, totally protected in case we may be offended or, worse still, in case we may be taken in by the supporters of terrorism. What if—we all pray that it will not happen—a more repressive government should take office in the future? The ground rules would have been laid down for censorship on a much wider scale than anything we have seen before.
The Minister pointed out that we should not make comparisons with, for example, South Africa. But I feel very uneasy about being applauded by South Africa and the ban used to justify measures in its own repressive regime. Those are not the kind of mates I want to be seen with or have agree with me.
The damage the ban has so far done to the World Service has received insufficient attention. The
684
reputation of the World Service for independence from the Government is internationally recognised and carefully cherished. The World Service has had battles in the past with other countries which are anxious that we should not give a hearing to the opposition in their countries, but always it has quite rightly stood firm. This reputation is now being undermined. Equally important is the encouragement the ban gives to those who support the IRA financially from abroad. Anyone with any understanding of American politics appreciates the passionate commitment to freedom of speech, mainly through the American devotion to the First Amendment. The ban has meant trenchant denunciation in the media there of what is seen by many commentators as being tantamount to Eastern European censorship. That applies not only to organisations which may support the IRA or Sinn Fein.
The pity is that there is now evidence that long-standing American support for IRA outrages has begun to diminish. By imposing the ban the Government have at a stroke rejuvenated pro-Irish sympathies in America and will almost certainly replenish the IRA's coffers. The ban is not only repressive; it is also short-sighted and self-defeating as an attempt to curb terrorism. Unfortunately the Government appear to believe that if they ignore the IRA in this rather lopsided way it will go away. More openness about Northern Ireland is needed—not less.
I find it insulting that we are deemed to be unfit to come to our own conclusions on the basis of uncensored information. We cannot afford to be represented as the enemy of the freedom that we are trying to defend all the time. I do not pretend that a solution to the troubles in Northern Ireland is easy to find, but I am positive that the ban is not the right solution. I am convinced that it will do more harm than good.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, in her forthright and convincing condemnation of the notice issued by the Home Secretary on 19th October banning the broadcasting of terrorist and proscribed organisations on radio or television. I have little doubt that the notice was issued with this thought at the back of the mind of the Government: that under the circumstances which faced them something had to be done. That "something" proved to be the ban which I have no doubt had been considered on many occasions over many years in the Home Office and rejected on each occasion.
I share the noble Baroness's belief that underlying the measure there is an attitude towards the people of this country which is deeply patronising; which does not trust them to make up their own minds; and which believes that they cannot see through the reality of figures such as Mr. Gerry Adams and his colleagues and that they will be taken in by them. I do not share, and I do not believe that the noble Baroness shares, that patronising view.
As my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich has said, we on these Benches have given consistent

685
support to all measures against terrorism in Ulster and elsewhere which this and other governments have proposed. We oppose them only where we believe that the proposed measures are ill-conceived, as in this case.
The Home Secretary's notice of 19th October falls into that territory. I must confess that I find neither of the main arguments which he used to defend the measure, repreated today in one form or another by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to be convincing. The first argument is that to allow terrorists to appear on television causes widespread offence to listeners and viewers. The second argument is that terrorists draw sustenance from access to television.
I agree with the noble Baroness. I believe that in a democracy it is essential that the public be allowed to be offended by what is offensive. It is only by seeing what is offensive that they can judge the nature, extent and seriousness of the threats which face them. I remember that before the war there were those who profoundly objected to the publication in this country of Mein Kampf on the ground that it was offensive in almost every conceivable respect. If only more people had read Mein Kampf , and if only they had read it more carefully, perhaps we should have acted more wisely and resolutely.
To take another example, it is because Stalin managed the media so effectively and manipulated it so skilfully that the horrors of Stalinism were concealed from so many people for so long and deceived so many people for so long. That only reinforces the remark made in a brilliant essay in Survival by a former Regius Professor of History at Oxford, Sir Michael Howard, when writing about the position in the USSR. He states:
"Democracy is unworkable without a free flow of reliable information. Such information not only engenders debate but eliminates misunderstandings".
However, it is argued—as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, argued this afternoon—that the censorship imposed by this notice is confined to interrupting the free flow of information only on radio and television. Why is it being confined to those two media? The noble Earl did not admit it in his speech but counted it to the credit of the Government. However, the fact is that the Government have no such powers over the press. They could not have imposed such a ban on the press. The reason given for imposing the ban on television and broadcasting is the idea that in some way they are magical and uniquely powerful with an ability somehow to persuade people in a way no other media can.
Precisely the same argument was used when the printing press was invented, revolutionising the means of conveying information to the public. It immediately aroused in the authorities of that time a fear that the information would be misunderstood and misused by the public. However, if broadcasting has such a unique power, if it is from broadcasting that people receive their news and views, then to censor it is a severe blow to the free flow of reliable information. No amount of argument put forward by the noble Earl can possibly gainsay that. It also means that Sir Michael's words must he taken most seriously indeed.
686
If it is not true—if that argument is not the case—and if by banning broadcasting and television one is not doing anything very important, why should there be all the fuss? Why should we have the notice in order to prevent the broadcast of eight minutes, including repeats, of film on "ITN News" over the past 12 months showing IRA people, terrorists, on the screen? That is what the ban would have achieved. It would have banned from broadcast on "ITN News" over the past 12 months eights minutes of film, including repeats. I wonder whether that is worth the dangers such a measure involves.
I well understand the feeling of those who believe that something must be done. I agree that the fight against terrorism must be relentless. However, it is equally important that the fight against terrorism is coupled with positive political initiatives. We are faced with an infinitely complex political and historical problem in which the support of public opinion—most certainly in Ulster but also in the Republic of Ireland and in the United States—is of considerable significance. It cannot be neglected.
The ban on broadcasting coupled with the Prime Minister's strident lectures to one and all about the extradition of Patrick Ryan can hardly have helped us to win the battle of people's minds. Nor is it a great tribute to the Government's diplomacy, public relations or call it what you will, that the chief supporters of the ban have been, as the noble Baroness pointed out, President Botha of South Africa and President Moi of Kenya. In the United States our ban has been greeted with dismay and bewilderment because, under its written constitution, it could not be brought in there.
Indeed, the effect on American opinion was expressed by the president of NBC News who announced on the television in this country that Britain is now the only Western democracy with broadcasting censorship. The fact that that is not true does not make it any less undesirable that that impression should be conveyed by a significant man who has powerful influence over what is broadcast in the United States.
As the noble Baroness pointed out, and I shall try to avoid repeating her, like all censorship this ban will lead to ludicrous consequences and a good deal of confusion. I do not know how many noble Lords have read the Scoble letter which was a letter from a senior official of the Home Office to the BBC interpreting the ambiguities of the Home Secretary's notice. In fact it requires a metaphysician to interpret Mr. Scoble's letter. For example, what is the status of that letter? It was sent to the BBC signed by Mr. Scoble, seen but not signed by the Home Office and a copy was sent to the IBA. What is its status and what is its standing in a court of law?
More important, the order in question forbids the broadcasting of any spoken words by the person who appears or is heard on the programme where—and this is rather important—(a) the person represents one of the proscribed organisations or (b) the words support or solicit or invite support for such an organisation. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to interpret that for me. The Scoble letter makes no reference to paragraph (b) and claims that the

687
restrictions only apply to direct statements and not to reported speech. That is not what the order says.
It is clear from paragraph (b) that what matters is whether the words solicit or support a proscribed organisation. Mr. Scoble argues that the order only applies to direct statements. If paragraph (b) says what it means, a reporter reporting words which support or solicit would be caught. If that is the case the order is far wider than we have been led to suppose. The fact is that the order should be examined in Committee word by word and sentence by sentence. I could go on asking other questions and, like the noble Baroness, I have been worried about the answer in the Home Secretary's letter about archival material and I shall come to that in a moment.
We are also told that genuine works of fiction are not within the scope of the notice. Who is to judge what is a genuine work of fiction? Was "Cathy come Home" a genuine work of fiction or was it not? Were the Memoirs of an Infantry Officer by Siegfried Sassoon a genuine work of fiction or were they not? What about the Lou Grant soap, which some of your Lordships may have seen? It takes place in Los Angeles and in one episode some IRA gun-runners play a significant part? Is that or is that not genuine fiction? Similarly, these problems arise with archival material. What about Robert Kee's series on Northern Ireland or Jeremy Isaacs' "The Troubles"; are they or are they not within the ban?
Perhaps I may take a statement which some of your Lordships will recognise. I ask the noble Earl how this would be handled. The statement reads as follows:
"There are things stronger than parliamentary majorities. If an attempt were made to deprive these men of their birthright, they would be justified in resisting, by all means in their power, including force".
If that were said on radio or on television direct to camera and if those remarks were addressed to Irish people, would they fall within the ban? Perhaps because of the nature and standing of the person who spoke those words he should have been a member of a proscribed party. Mr. Andrew Bonar Law was the leader of the Conservative party when he made those remarks and I suspect that those remarks would have fallen within any such ban.
There are problems and questions which demand an answer. The Home Secretary's order cannot, as the noble Baroness said, simply be seen in connection with the tragedy in Ulster. It has far wider implications than that. I very much hope that those implications will be examined in a court of law because that will establish, first, whether freedom of expression, which has always been regarded as a residual right in this country, is a fundamental right, as it is under the Convention on Human Rights. Secondly, they will establish whether the courts would uphold a case on two grounds. One ground is that both the BBC and the IBA are under an obligation of impartiality. It could and should be argued—and I believe that it is a very plausible argument—that the order makes it impossible to carry out that impartiality for which they have a duty. That would establish for the first time the limits
688
and the extent to which a government can override the liberties of broadcasters. That seems to me very important.
I hope that judicial review proceedings will be taken and that if our courts do not uphold the case—and our judiciary on past record is unlikely to do that—I hope that an appeal will be taken to the European Court of Human Rights. There, they will have a chance to decide for the first time the limits of governments' abilities to restrict the freedom of broadcasters and to establish that freedom of expression is a fundamental right in this country.
I hope that a case will be brought by the BBC, unless it has been too cowed. If it is not brought by the BBC then by the IBA, and if not by the IBA then by Channel 4. It would be best of all if such a case were brought by them all.
4.8 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I believe that all of us will agree with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that this is a very important issue and it is right that your Lordships' House should have an opportunity to debate it. The fundamental point of principle lying behind this is the matter is this: How far should a democratic society go in sacrificing its freedoms in order to fight terrorism?
I wish to concentrate on the point made by the noble Earl about the propaganda weapon which is said to have been handed to the IRA. I believe that he dismissed this far too lightly. I hope that when he sums up he will treat this matter much more seriously, especially in the light of some of the comments made by the previous two speakers.
It is well known that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Many of us in the Churches have had to wrestle seriously on whether all terrorism is the same or whether there are differences, with more justification for those who take arms in certain situations than in others. I think of the voices coming to us from Christian leaders in situations of massive injustice in parts of South America, Africa and Asia.
When this issue is raised my mind goes back to the Lambeth Conference and the discussions we had among the bishops at Lambeth as to how to respond to what some of the leaders from South Africa were saying to us about the situation there and in Namibia where already some people have taken up arms against the regime in that country of South Africa.
A resolution was produced which I had to move at the Lambeth Conference on our attitude to southern Africa. It was greatly misunderstood in many quarters. In fact, a disgraceful headline appeared in one popular paper stating, "Bishops Bless Terror". They did no such thing. What the resolution did—and it was very carefully drafted—was to express support for those who in the face of great provocation in southern Africa continue to pursue the path of non-violence. However, it also expressed understanding for those who, after all other means have been exhausted—I underline that—find themselves compelled to take the road of armed struggle and so become terrorists in one person's jargon and freedom fighters in another's.
The question was raised sharply at Lambeth: why should Northern Ireland and the situation there be

689
any different? It is no secret that my colleagues from Northern Ireland, the Irish bishops, were deeply concerned about this resolution, especially when they saw the press the following day. Yet I believe there is a profound difference between the situations in South Africa and Namibia, parts of Latin America and Asia where people have been driven to take up arms, and the situation in Northern Ireland today.
Why is there this difference? This comes to the real heart of this debate. It can only be regarded as different if the IRA and the Protestant paramilitaries have no justification for their acts of bloody violence—no moral justification for it—because there are other means of remedying oppression. Slogans appear on the walls of Republican areas:
"IRA—the voice of an oppressed people".
It is important for all of us here in Britain to try to hear the voices of those who are oppressed, or who feel they are oppressed, in Northern Ireland today.
I share with your Lordships some words from the Financial Times which were published at the time the Home Secretary made his announcement:
"Despite the efforts that have been made since the civil rights marches in the late 1960s, the extent of the political and social alienation among Catholics, especially but by no means exclusively, in the working-class districts of Belfast, is still underestimated by the British authorities. The Government's decision to tinker with the way Northern Ireland is reported will strengthen the view … that British ministers see the Irish problem largely in terms of security—to the neglect of the political and social factors that contribute to the unrest".
I believe that it is fundamental for us in the United Kingdom to see something of what those political and social factors are and the sense of injustice that still remains, however much greater it may have been in the past.
I do not for one moment wish to minimise the efforts which are being made in the fields of equal opportunities, employment and housing to remedy some of those injustices, but my main point is this. I do not believe that the IRA can really be considered the true voice of an oppressed people if there are other ways of bringing attention to these injustices and continuing the struggle for justice.
In Northern Ireland we have been able to say that there are indeed other ways forward. It is a part of the United Kingdom in which there is a high degree of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and where people from the Republican areas can be elected for Sinn Fein or, on the other side of this tragic divide, people can be elected to represent the voices of extreme Protestantism.
I conclude from that that all situations of terrorism are by no means the same. I think we all concede that. The extreme example which is always pointed out is that of the Nazis in occupied Europe and those people who rose in resistance in France and elsewhere against that terrible regime. Therefore many of us do not believe that, whatever justification there may be for the armed struggles in other parts of the world, there is any justification whatever for the methods of the IRA and the Protestant paramilitaries in Northern Ireland today. It is significant that the IRA receives no support whatever, officially, from the Roman Catholic Church.
690
However, we are only able to draw that distinction provided those liberties are maintained in Northern Ireland. This is where I come to the whole point about the propaganda advantage now being handed on an open plate to the IRA in particular. It was no surprise to me to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, say that already this is being used in the United States of America, and not only by those with Republican sympathies. After all, we are struggling for the middle ground in world opinion, and that is fundamental.
It is good that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, emphasised that the action is limited, but many actions begin by being limited and yet are significant steps—the thin end of the wedge—towards something that begins to erode certain important liberties. The point that worries me is that the action is being taken against organisations which are legal. The kinds of difficulties into which the Government are getting themselves in this regard were shown clearly by both the previous speakers when they referred to the problem of distinguishing between what happens at times of elections and what happens in the normal run of the month or year.
The Minister justified this step on the ground of the power of television. It is a powerful and intrusive medium coming right into our living rooms. However, I have always understood that part of the role of television is to convey as true art impression as is possible of the world in which we live. That puts heavy responsibilities on the programme makers. I can quite see that if we did not have a ban such as that proposed, Republican or Protestant paramilitary spokesmen could be used in badly made programmes which give a distorted view and are totally inappropriate. They should be subject to criticism for such programmes; not bullying, but criticism to make sure that people are able to see the true picture of what is happening in Northern Ireland.
A great deal depends in this debate—and it is, I suppose, similar to the arguments about pornography—on the point of view from which programmes are made. Therefore I conclude by saying that although I understand the reasons the Government feel driven to do something to counter the use made of the mass media by these organisations I am sure that this ban is the wrong way to go about it. I am afraid that it is tragically counterproductive. It gets dangerously near eroding the fundamental principles of liberty in our country and simply hands a propaganda weapon to those whom the Government wish to discourage and to fight against.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, the number of occasions upon which a government of either political party have found it necessary to issue a directive such as the one issued by this Government on 19th October are so limited that I find it extremely difficult to remember even one such case. In a very much lighter vein, I remember a directive instructing us not to advertise cigarettes on television, but that is in rather a different field.
I have tried to recall an occasion when programmes have been interfered with to the extent that this directive obviously does and is intended to

691
do. But it is a very different kind of directive with a very different purpose. Noble Lords will remember that both the BBC and the IBA have advisory committees. Those committees are themselves formed of governors of the BBC and members of the Independent Broadcasting Authority. If they do their job at all—and from the little experience that I had some years ago I am pretty sure that they do—issues of this kind must have come before them. They must have realised that there was an issue to be discussed. Whether or not they discussed it, we do not know. The directive is something rather different which could and perhaps should have fallen within the purview of the advisory committees and of the BBC governors and IBA members.
Over the years various governments in this country have been very anxious to explain and emphasise the importance of not interfering in any way with the programme content of broadcasting. It is generally known that the BBC under its charter and the IBA under respective Acts have to be absolutely impartial in dealing with political issues. They have to see that programmes are generally well balanced in every respect. They have to be sure that even the coverage of the news of the day is factual and accurate and that any comment must be limited to just sufficient added information to make the news items understandable without taking sides in one direction or another as regards the particular news item. One should not expect, and I hope that we never have, the personal views of any newscaster or the producer of any news programme infiltrating into the programme itself.
The BBC and the IBA already have the necessary authority to prevent the broadcasting of any matter which infringes the charter and the Acts. I can assure noble Lords that on occasions they take such action and it is to their credit that they do. In fiction this happens frequently. A programme that is too violent or has too much sex very often has something taken out and on one or two occasions programmes are banned. When one returns to this kind of issue where an apologist for murder and violence appears on the air, probably as the result of an interview, and himself advocates those views or, to be kind to him, simply apologises for them, one is in a very different position. That should have been seen and noticed by the people responsible; namely, the BBC governors and the IBA members.
If we speak about Sinn Fein as a political party, but only as such, then it has as much right as any other political party. But if it uses that cover as an apology for murder, the position arises as to how it should be dealt with and in what way. We know that Sinn Fein is unquestionably—I am looking for the right word—associated perhaps, with the IRA and it fails in not denouncing murder and violence by the IRA. In some way or other it regards the IRA as part of its political activity for a legitimate political end; namely, a republic of the whole of Ireland. That is what it is after, and Sinn Fein may regard it as a legitimate political end. It is entitled to say so politically if it is only a political action. In my view what it is not entitled to do is to become an advocate for violence.
To report the news of terrorist activities and murder is the result of the way in which we cover
692
news items. I am not arguing with it or suggesting that it is wrong. It has to be done in a way to condone what is contained within the news items. The majority of the people of the United Kingdom, and I am sure also the people of the Republic of Ireland itself, are appalled and opposed to murder and violence. They are opposed to it from whatever side it comes. It is not only the IRA that has been concerned with violence.
I am extremely sorry that the Government have had to give this directive to the BBC and the IBA. I repeat that they had all the necessary authority to deal with the situation, and with all the advice that they have had they could have done so. It is very difficult for there to be any justification for giving terrorists the freedom of the air. Unless something is done, that is what we are going to do. Speaking for myself and my SDP colleagues on these Benches, despite our extreme dislike of censorship in any form, we feel that the Government have had to make this directive. At the same time we regret that the governors of the BBC and the members of the IBA have not taken action.
4.28 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I was disappointed with the unconstructive speeches of noble Lords from the Front Benches of the parties opposite in this very difficult situation. They seem to add nothing positive to the difficulties that we face. I fully support Her Majesty's Government in the actions they have taken and in the directive that the Home Secretary has given on their behalf. Of course it is not a complete solution; I wish it were as easy as that. It is a contribution in the right direction but it is no panacea. It seems that we must regard ourselves virtually in a state of war with those who are prepared to kill innocent people in pursuance of their objectives however strongly their views are held. In such circumstances surely it is entirely reasonable to give up to some small extent the freedom that we regard as fundamental to our way of life in normal circumstances.
If the sacrifice of a small amount of our freedom saves just a few lives, surely it is well worth while. I believe it is for Her Majesty's Government to decide what measures are needed to deal with this very difficult situation and how those measures are to be applied. They have, I am sure, balanced the public relations aspects—the pluses and the minuses—which have already been referred to in the debate. I believe that they have judged rightly.
In my view it is greatly preferable that the Home Secretary should come out clearly and give a directive, which he is empowered to do under Act of Parliament rather than that he should lean on the broadcasting authorities as was done on the BBC by the Home Secretary in 1985 at the time of the dispute over the Real Lives programme. That put the BBC in an extremely difficult position. It is much better that the Government should take responsibility and not in any way shove it on to the broadcasting authorities. That the Government have done. They have been firm and courageous. I welcome the action they have taken for that reason and because it makes a small

693
but useful contribution to this difficult and dangerous situation.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I thought that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, made out as good a case as can be made for this measure. Television has a singular power over the emotions of the viewer. It confers status and glamour even on the participants in television programmes. It can raise millions of pounds overnight for charity. And in the shops one sees pathetic labels on goods, "As advertised on TV". So it is highly desirable that terrorist organisations and their sympathisers should not appear on television.
But how often do they appear on television? I wonder whether the noble Earl can give us some facts in this case. There seems to be quite a dispute between the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and his former noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone. He suggested that the BBC and ITV had been remiss in their duties. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, spoke of terrorist sympathisers appearing for eight minutes only in a year.
If the terrorist sympathisers are precluded by this government edict, do not let us suppose that this moral gesture will have any visible effect on the incidence of terrorism. It will not stay the hand on the bomb fuse. If it could, one might be more sympathetic to this decree. There will be only a moral reward for this moral gesture and there will be an important moral loss. We have embarked on a measure of censorship. Who knows what the next step will be?
There is one immediate loss to be feared. The whole world is interested in the Irish question. Its best source of objective information is the World Service of the BBC. Over the years the BBC has established its reputation for being independent of government. Indeed it was only yesterday that it won a prize from the United Nations for the excellence of its reporting. But now the pure well has been slightly muddied. The world knows that the BBC is censored by the Government. Reasons can be found for this edict. There are always good reasons for censorship. However, there are always better reasons for fighting against censorship, for condemning censorship and for resisting censorship. I cannot support the Government, wholehearted though I am in the struggle against terrorism. Indeed I am one of those who believes that terrorism is never justified even in the worst conditions of oppression.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, some six years ago, when I was serving as High Commissioner in Canada, I saw a report that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which has a role in Canada very much like that of the BBC in this country, was planning to broadcast an interview with Gerry Adams. I immediately telephoned a senior man in the CBC to say that I had been greatly surprised to see this report, that I found it hard to believe, that if it was true I thought that perhaps those responsible could
694
not be aware of the position held by Gerry Adams in Sinn Fein/IRA and that I hoped very much that on reconsideration the CBC would decide not to broadcast that interview. The CBC thought it over and rang me back to tell me that they had decided not to broadcast it.
It was therefore something of a shock to me to learn soon after that at home the BBC did interview Gerry Adams and some of his associates. I thought that it was wrong then and I think now that it was wrong. My principal reason is that it is intolerable—I do not think that that is too strong a word—that the families of those who have been murdered by the IRA, whether they are soldiers, policemen or civilians, should have to see in their living-rooms the godfathers of that organisation giving specious justification of the terrible things that they have done.
In an ideal society those in charge of our great broadcasting institutions would not for a moment consider it right to broadcast interviews with terrorists. I am greatly surprised that the governors of the BBC and those in charge of the IBA have thought it right to do so. I was struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, said about this, which seemed to me to be right. If that had been so it would not have been necessary for the Government to act. But we have to face conditions as they are. The BBC and ITN appear to believe that broadcasters should be given a free hand in these matters. The broadcasters themselves clearly think—not without reason—that interviews with terrorists are on occasion good copy.
Another factor, which I have mentioned before in the House, is the slight degree of bias in BBC handling of the issue. I corresponded about this point in the spring with the chairman of the BBC. I said in one of my letters that I thought as an ordinary listener that there was a slight but noticeable slant towards the republican view in BBC reporting. I mentioned,
"constant air time given to IRA spokesmen (who are of course banned on RTE) and constant examples of biased editing—either in the selection of speakers or in the presentation of the news."
I think therefore that in the present circumstances the action taken by the Home Secretary is justifiable and right. I only wish that it could have been taken 10 or 15 years ago.
I regret that it was not found possible to extend the restriction to all the media. At the moment it looks somewhat discriminatory to apply it only to television and radio. I wonder whether there is any way to close the loopholes which television at any rate used to try to get around this, some of which were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. I refer to the business of showing a still photograph and then printing the words on the screen in order to cheat and to dodge the ban. There have been restrictions of this kind in the Republic for a good many years, since as far back as 1960. They have worked well there. Indeed in The Times of 6th April there was a cogent and clearly argued article by Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien, a former Minister in the Republic. He introduced an amendment to the regulations on this issue. He set out in that article as clearly as I have seen it expressed the case for restrictions of this kind. To any noble Lord who

695
doubts the propriety of the Home Secretary's action I strongly commend it.
The Canadian to whom I spoke—
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, am I to understand from what the noble Lord said that he believes that censorship should be extended to the press? If he thinks that it should be extended to the press, should it not be extended further than the press and to the spoken word?
Lord Moran: My Lords, what I said was that I regretted that it had not been found possible to extend it in that way.
When I spoke to my Canadian friend in the CBC, he could have said—although he did not—that surely Gerry Adams was an elected Member of the House of Commons and, therefore, how could the CBC be criticised for carrying an interview with him. That shows the illogicality to some extent of the Government's position.
After all, as I understand it, Ministers refuse—I think rightly—to talk to members of Sinn Fein, but we allow Sinn Fein to stand at elections, either for the House of Commons or for local councils. Indeed, it seems to me—as has been pointed out—that Sinn Fein could dodge this ban by putting up a multiplicity of candidates for elections and then they would be free, as they are taking part in the elections, to be interviewed and to put the IRA's case publicly. So I think that the logic must be that, despite what the Minister has said, we ought to consider seriously outlawing Sinn Fein.
We are concerned with two cases: our own case and that of the IRA, and how to get this across to people of open mind. The action which has been taken by the Home Secretary is of course negative action, shutting off a channel for all the terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland. It seems to me that we also need positive action to get the truth understood generally. I believe that we have had some success in the United States in doing this, but it appears to me that we have had less success in Europe.
It is a little difficult because the Continent of Europe is predominantly Catholic and there may be some predisposition there to think that there is some merit in the Republican case. It seems to me that the whole episode which we have just witnessed—namely, the affair of former Father Ryan—has demonstrated that we have not managed to get our case across effectively in Europe.
Three months ago I never could have imagined that the Belgian Government would fly a suspected IRA terrorist back to Dublin in a military aircraft, avoiding British airspace. It would have seemed to me to be wholly fantastic; but it has happened. I believe that it has happened against a background of misunderstanding in Europe of the British case. I think that we need to make a real effort—that is, Ministers, ambassadors and the whole of our information machine—to get our case, and the truth of the situation as we know it, across to European opinion.
One thing that the IRA knows is that to be effective you say something over and over again. Let us take
696
a simple example. It says, for instance, that an Irishman can get no justice in a British court. It does not matter if it is totally untrue; it says it again and again. As a propaganda weapon I think that it is effective because some of it sticks.
We never do that. For example, we have an extradition case like that of Evelyn Glenholmes, which is fairly scandalous, but we never mention it. Once it has happened it is all forgotten. I think that we should say again and again, "Where is Evelyn Glenholmes? Why hasn't she been produced to our authorities to stand trial?"
I think that Europeans and others find it difficult to understand what they sometimes see as our ambiguous attitude. We say on the one hand that we are fighting Sinn Fein and the IRA but, on the other hand, we allow Sinn Fein, as I said, to operate legally. By contrast the IRA's line is crude but consistent. It commits an outrage and then denounces the British Government, while all its friends in the United States and Europe, and in this country, do the same and speak with one voice.
I think that we need to make our attitude very clear. I hope that the current review of the Anglo-Irish Agreement will perhaps give us an opportunity to make our attitude clearer. I hope that we shall ask the Irish to take security matters more seriously and perhaps to make extradition automatic once the identity of the person concerned is established and, further, to allow their army to talk to ours—which, after all, it still cannot do three years after the agreement.
Therefore, I think that we are entitled to ask for far more determination to join in a joint effort to stamp out terrorism. I hope that we shall do that primarily in this context in order to make our attitude absolutely clear and understandable to those in Europe and elsewhere who do not at present understand it.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I should like to say a few words about freedom of speech, democracy and terrorism. However, before doing so, I should like to thank the media, especially the BBC, for their reaction to this government action. As noble Lords will be aware, they are now prefacing reports where they would have interviewed someone now supposedly banned with the remark, "This broadcast is coming to you under the broadcasting restrictions imposed by the Government". That effectively puts the scene into context alongside the problems that the BBC has in reporting the situation in South Africa.
Having said that, we must be most careful. One interesting aspect is that this afternoon we are not being asked to approve, or disapprove, of the Government's action; just to note it. I thank the Government for putting the Motion in that form. It enables us to have a sensible debate rather than a slanging match about the pros and cons. I think that some useful points are being made.
Freedom of speech is something British people hold in very high regard. It is a watchword of most politicians, I think, that we will defend the right of people to say what they like even though we disagree

697
with what they say. Some people may add, "to the death"; but that is a bit theatrical. However, freedom of speech is something about which we have high aspirations. It is unfortunate that that high regard is observed in the breach more often than it is in the adherence.
Going back hundreds of years and considering the attitude of the establishment to the emergence of newspapers, we can see how in their early days they were controlled and censored. We now have a situation—some time later of course—where it is very difficult for the government of the day to censor the written word, although they still keep trying. One only has to think of the Peter Wright affair to see how the Government still attempt to censor the written word.
Freedom of speech is important; it is an essential adjunct to democracy. As other speakers have said, it is impossible to have democracy without freedom of expression and freedom to communicate ideas and ideals. One of the problems with this government action is that it has been taken with an almost complete disregard of democracy. There was no public consultation. We have heard that it was dictated to the IBA and the BBC at an hour's notice. There was no prior discussion either here or in the other place. Unfortunately the Government denied themselves the opportunity to garner, through discussion and contributions reflecting other aspects of thought, how the action might be received and what the problems might be. As other noble Lords have said, we are faced with some very grave anomalies in the interpretation of the government diktat. But we are also faced with the practical reality that the cause of the IRA has been succoured in countries outside the United Kingdom, particularly in the United States.
This is one of the problems facing us with this Government. They have the "little England" mentality that anything we do as little Englanders is right and that we do not need to listen to anyone else. They will not even listen to the Scots and the Welsh, far less the Irish, and certainly not to anyone in the United States, Belgium or Australia. I hope it will be noted that I say "listen". Listening is very important. The ability to listen is predetermined by the ability of people to express themselves freely and to explain their point of view. This Government not only seek not to listen; they are now attempting to deny people the ability to express themselves. The fundamental problem here is that the Government are effectively denying the very concept of democracy.
I should like to say a little about terrorists. Terrorism can take many forms. My wife is terrorised by telephone calls in the middle of the night from people who will not give their names and who accuse me of being sympathetic to the IRA. In 1981 I saw grown men shaking with fear because of the threat of redundancy. Terror has been employed by the British Government at various times and in various circumstances. Towards the end of the last century the Boers in South Africa were terrorised and forced into concentration camps by the British establishment with the resultant inculcation of the
698
Broederbond, the introverted mentality of the Boers, which has led to so many problems in South Africa. Therefore, there is a very wide historical perspective.
Having said that, one might think that I was opposed to terrorism. However, there are occasions when I can appreciate that terrorism, the threat and use of physical violence, is sometimes neccesary. We only recall the recent (in historical terms) South Atlantic campaign to retake the Falklands, to realise that the use of terror and physical violence is sometimes required to achieve the ends that are being sought. I am sure that during the psychological warfare of the Falklands campaign, the Government were trying to employ the arts of terrorism to frighten the Argentinian troops into surrender. The white flag flying over Stanley suggests that they were in some measure successful. Some people would applaud that situation. We should recognise that the loss of life in that conflict was much less than it might have been. There are occasions when the use of physical violence and terror is sanctioned and accepted by this Government.
There is one thing in the context of Northern Ireland that we must appreciate. When Merlyn Rees was Home Secretary, he tried with some success to criminalise the activities of those people who were employing physical violence and terror in Northern Ireland. I say that he had limited success. But that is a very potent way of dealing with some of the problems we have had in Northern Ireland.
To talk continually about IRA terrorism feeds the political element of the problem. It gives propaganda advantage to Irish Republicans. One of the problems is that Parliament and the Government are always faced with the need to be seen to be doing something. Sometimes it is better for us to say that we will stay our hand as parliamentarians and legislators because it is a problem which must be dealt with by the professionals involved. I should like to see the Government change tack and say that many of the problems of Northern Ireland that spill into the mainland fall within the province of the criminal law, and that ordinary police methods should be used to deal with them.
One thing that frightens me is the Government continually saying: We know such and such has committed a terrorist attack; we know so-and-so is a terrorist; we have taken action to exclude them. How can they say that? What confidence can we have in the word of the Government when we look back at the situation in Gibraltar? We were advised by the government spokesmen that at least three people shot in the streets in Gibraltar were armed and had a big bomb that they were about to explode. The truth came out later: not only were they not armed, but there was no bomb. The problem that faces us is the credibility of the Government. This is where truth and freedom of speech arise. When freedom of speech is denied, disillusionment is created together with an environment where probably quite truthful statements by the Government can be pointed to as being probable lies. The Government has been indulging in distortions of the truth and being economical with the truth on so many occasions.

699
I make a plea to the Government: please be more open and more truthful. It can only rebound to the advantage of the Government and all of us.
Lord Monson: I wonder whether the noble Lord can answer one question. He appears to be in favour of the broadcasting media being allowed to do whatever they wish without censorship of any sort. Logically, therefore, the noble Lord should be in favour of the BBC and ITV being free to transmit hard-core pornography and incitement to racial hatred. Is that really what the noble Lord wants?
Lord Monkswell: I think that there is a wide measure of agreement that the publication and the broadcasting of matters which tend to be racially inflammatory or pornographic is not permitted. However, in this instance we are talking about the elected representatives of the people of a valid political party that contests elections and, in the case of Sinn Fein, has over 100,000 supporters who are prepared to put their tick on the ballot paper. Are we going to say that their spokesmen should be denied any say?
5 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I regret that I missed my turn to speak, for which I apologise. However, it has kindly been arranged that I can now say a few words.
The remarkable thing about the debate is that very few of the people associated with Ireland appear to have spoken in it. That seems rather astounding. With great respect, I think that one or two speakers went off the subject. For instance, the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, even brought in Stalin. He said words to the effect that the reason no one knew about the 30 million people murdered by Stalin was that there was press censorship. That may have been part of the reason, but I think it was not popular with our press. How was it then that in this House, pretty well ever since I have been here—1956—I was drawing attention the whole time to the brutalities of Stalin and to the appalling murders? The censorship cannot have been very strong.
There are one or two other matters that I wish to raise. If I had not missed my turn I should have spoken at far greater length, so perhaps your Lordships are rather lucky.
We have heard a great deal about freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not a licence to kill. A lot of things have been said about the IRA. People seem to think that the IRA is an enormous organisation. The number of terrorists who commit these appalling crimes—and some are protestant—is very small. There is another matter about which I have been told, although it may not have been right. When members of the IRA are captured, they are all very young, and none of them knows the history of Ireland. I understand that they are completely brainwashed, and some may even be drugged.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, brought in the question of what he called the alienation of the Catholics. With due respect, that is nonsense. As a young man I was brought up in Ireland. I know it very well. My family was prominent in the North and
700
in the South. My father was the king mason of Ireland. We employed Catholics, and Catholic priests came to my father's funeral. To say that everyone in the North of Ireland is anti-Catholic is absolute nonsense. If a referendum were held in the North of Ireland today, I am sure that the great majority of Catholics would vote to remain in the United Kingdom. Therefore there has been a great deal of exaggeration in the debate by noble Lords—I say this again, with respect—who do not really understand Ireland.
I should like to emphasise that in my opinion the debate has to a great extent been all theory. We were told, for instance—it is quite right —that the BBC has impartiality, and of course it always must have. I remember, although I do not want to go too far back, the time of the Rhodesian crisis. I remember that the African nationalists were always put on television, but the moderate Africans were never put on. I brought this up in the House, and I was told, "You must remember that the BBC is impartial". There you are: one can have it both ways.
I thank your Lordships for allowing me to speak. I support the Government strongly in regard to what is being called censorship; and I suppose that it is a form of censorship. I am chairman of a television company, a public cmpany. It came on the market only about three months ago. I had been a director of this company as a private company for a long time. I do not hold with all the arguments that have been used to the effect that this is a law that will destroy freedom of speech. I think that is an utterly nonsensical argument.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Jakobovits: My Lords, this debate with its exceedingly wide range of conflicting arguments to my mind has clearly shown that we are dealing here with issues of the most profound consequence and of fundamental principle far beyond the immediate concerns of the Home Secretary's order, and that we cannot isolate the specific situation in Northern Ireland from the wider issue of international terrorism, of which it is an integral part. It is therefore to those basic issues that I should like to address myself in a few remarks.
Let me admit at once that in any conflict between life and civil liberties I am on the side of life. The first duty of any government is to ensure the safety of their citizens. There may be a political or ideological debate on whether the state owes a living to its citizens, but there can be no question that it owes to every citizen the defence of life, the most precious of all.
Much has been said here and elsewhere about the threat to the freedom of speech and the erosion of civil liberties. To my mind this argument is based on a moral fallacy and a grave misjudgment. When I am about to board an air flight, as I do fairly frequently, and I am subjected to a thorough search, perhaps even including frisking my body, I readily tolerate and indeed welcome this infringement of my liberties for I feel safer on the flight.
To allow violence to be publicly justified or excused not only gives offence to relatives of victims

701
or to maimed survivors; such defence of murder should outrage every citizen. It diminishes our humanity; it heapens our decency; it affronts our morality and it erodes our civilisation.
Much more is at stake here. The normal process of the law, with all its safeguards, may be adequate to cope with even the worse kinds of offenders, murderers, rapists and hideous child abusers, who act out of passion, lust or greed for personal gain; but in a totally different category are acts of terror calculated to subvert the rule of law itself, to hold governments to ransom and to incite violence by inflammatory rhetoric. The defence against this menace can no more rely on traditional methods of fighting crime than one could prevail against nuclear or chemical warfare with bows and arrows.
A 2,000 year-old saying in the Jewish Ethics of the Fathers proclaims:
"Pray for the peace, for the welfare, of the Government. Since but for the fear thereof, men would swallow each other alive".
If ever society allows men of violence to impose their will on our rulers, nations will become ungovernable. We would reduce them to the anarchy and agony of Lebanon.
The role of the media is all important, for they not only reflect, but control, condition and manipulate public opinion which can either make or break the chances for terrorism to succeed. It is sheer hypocrisy for those who deny and undermine the law guarding society to seek for themselves the protection of the law; to claim the benefit of liberty in order to deprive others of it.
What kind of warped and irrational consistency demands, as has been argued, that because some governments may at one time or another have been soft on terrorism, they should not be firm in the future? I urge only one variation in the Home Office's proposed directions. Reference has been made to ambiguities and confusion as to what may be broadcast. To my mind, it matters not who speaks on the media; what matters is what they say.
By all means let members of any organisation be free to present their political thoughts and aspirations as they see fit. What ought never to be tolerated in the media, including the press, is their use to advocate or justify acts of violence; to encourage anything illegal, or to incite intercommunal hatred, prejudice or discrimination. Such promotion of subversion should be made into a criminal offence for speaker and media alike, whether committed by a member of a terrorist organisation or not.
It is indefensible for the law-abiding 95 per cent. of the population to make their media available to the tiny fraction of law breakers so that they can amplify the voice of lawlessness. The conflict between security and freedom of speech has still wider ramifications. With every air traveller now being a possible hijack victim, and with hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens being at risk from terrorist bombings, international terrorism potentially threatens far more lives than drugs, AIDS or any other single scourge.
Often that evil exists only because it relies upon the media to carry its message. If hijackers knew that by
702
international agreement under no circumstances would their so-called demands ever be broadcast, and that they would invariably be returned for trial to the country against which they acted, as in the textbook treatment of last week's Soviet hijackers who were returned by Israel to the Soviet Union within 24 hours—if they knew those two inescapable consequences in advance—there would be no hijacks in the first place.
I hope that Britain, with such an enviable record in its resolute resistance to terrorism, will press for effective international action to those ends to ensure, above all, that the media everywhere will never be permitted to make terrorism a worthwhile propaganda tool for gangs of ruthless killers. Terror will be suppressed if it no longer pays publicity dividends.
Perhaps I may conclude on a personal note. I was a 12-year-old youth in Berlin when Hitler came to power. For three years, I lived under his tyranny. He came to power, and remained in power, through perfectly democratic elections. All he did was to use his rabble-rousing skills on the media to turn what had been a highly cultured and civilised people into millions of mass murderers and silent accomplices. I well recall the chilling dread which seized us every time that evil man appeared on the radio to mesmerise the masses into mindless savages. No doubt there were then also people who would have opposed any ban on Hitler using the press and radio to propagate his incitement to terror as a denial of civil liberties and freedom of speech, or who would have argued that such a ban would be counter-productive and would drive the movement under ground. Had it been driven under ground, the world would have been spared its greatest ordeal which cost tens of millions of lives and from which we have not entirely recovered.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said that if more people had only read Mein Kampf there would have been more opposition. My memory and experience tell me that if that work had been suppressed and had not been allowed to be publicised, there would have been no Hitler and there would have been none of the consequences that we endured.
The human mind, infinitely wonderful as it is, is a fragile organ of the greatest delicacy, easily prone to be corrupted by unscrupulous appeals to the brute and the vile in man. Even more important than protecting our physical environment from ecological pollution is preventing the pollution of our channels of mass communication from poisoning millions of minds; from turning the mass media, meant to serve as a meaningful mentor, into a menace as a lethal tormentor.
There should be non-partisan support for the determination to keep our national home clean from such moral pollution which seeks to confer the insult of legitimacy upon violence and law breaking and add it to the injury of destroying defences protecting life, limb and decency.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he take the opportunity

703
to assure your Lordships that his strong denunciation of terrorism in all circumstances applies also to governments in various parts of the world who employ methods of violence and terror against their own people?
Lord Jakobovits: My Lords, I am not a pacifist. I do not reject recourse to force and violence by a nation against evils such as those we saw rise with Hitler. I have dealt with the juxtaposition of freedom of speech and civil liberties with the rights of individuals to the protection of their lives by governments appointed to do so.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I wish to express my appreciation of what the previous speaker said. I hope that there may be many other occasions when we shall hear the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, speak in the future.
I wish to say something about the overseas broadcasts of the BBC which have received so much acclaim this evening. I wish to make it perfectly clear that I listened to those broadcasts during the war. One reason why they received the acclaim which they did then, and which they do today, was that they told the truth. At that time some people overseas were subjected to a foreign power which had taken over their country. They were subjected to tortures and they were told that if they listened to the BBC they would be executed. They came to believe what the BBC said because the BBC told the truth.
What the BBC told people overseas was that at the beginning Britain was losing that war as a result of the defeats that it was suffering, but that it hoped to pull through in the future. Then, when victory came and the tide was turned, listeners heard that story too. People overseas believed that no country would tell stories of that kind unless they were the truth. That was the reason why the overseas broadcasts of the BBC at that time acquired renown. That renown has remained with the BBC.
Today some people say that the BBC should adopt the same policy with regard to broadcasting throughout this country. But today the position is entirely different. We are not suffering defeats in the sense of war, and there is not that population overseas who are interested in our situation. They were interested during the war as regards our situation because of their own feelings, and as a result of what they suffered under oppression. They were interested to hear when victory would come. The circumstances now are entirely different.
If the BBC wants to re-establish its reputation, it must have another think as regards what it wants to do with its overseas broadcasts. That is my opinion. I want to be quick because the speeches have taken quite a long time in this debate tonight. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, made a remark that the Government, by imposing restrictions, were denying freedom to the people. What the Government are doing is to impose restrictions against a certain section of the community; that is, certain broadcasts of the BBC. It is not a widespread denial of freedom. That is all that the Government are doing.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, this is the problem that we are trying to address. The noble Lord says that only a small number of people is involved. But when one starts eroding freedom one stops either a small or a large number of people having access to certain interviews, speeches and other things. If one places it on a much larger scale, one advances the situation a long way. With great respect, I do not think one can argue in that way.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I would answer the noble Baroness by saying that if the broadcasts about the terrorism that took place in Gibraltar were a fair expression of the facts that occurred in that island, that situation would require further consideration. There is no doubt that a tremendous amount of agitation took place against the security forces and the Government for the action they took in Gibraltar. That, in its turn, washed off against the brave men who were finally forced to go to that island and give evidence as regards how they carried out their attacks.
The agitation was so bad— it was fostered by what the broadcasting authorities had done because they broadcast everything— that it was necessary for the men to give their evidence in such a way that they were hidden from view. The reason for that was simply that there was a danger that they would suffer death at the hands of the terrorists if their identity was disclosed. That is all fact. The Government are absolutely justified in asking us to take note of the minor law which is now on the statute book.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me if I intervene at this point because I telephoned too late to get my name included in the debate. The noble Earl may remember that when he made his Statement some weeks ago on this matter in this House, I asked him what the situation was in the Republic of Ireland. He said that the Sinn Fein party was banned and that RTE was forbidden to broadcast its activities. The Republic of Ireland has of course a long memory on these matters.
In 1922 when the Irish Free State was proclaimed, the Prime Minister at that time, Mr. Michael Collins, was assassinated by the IRA shortly after the state was proclaimed. The Irish Free State was faced with the possibility that it would be overthrown by terrorism. Therefore it decided to take the most drastic measures possible. In six months it shot more Irishmen than the British had shot in six years. That fine novelist, Erskine Childers, was found with a revolver in his house. He was taken out into his garden and shot. That is why the IRA was then defeated and that is the memory of the Republic of Ireland of terrorism in its own country. That is why I ask the noble Earl, when he told the House that there were certain measures which the Government had under review, whether among those measures they had in mind the banning of Sinn Fein as a political party in Northern Ireland.
It seems to me that the Government have got themselves into an illogical state of mind. I think it is very difficult for broadcasters to observe what the Government are asking them to do, not so much as

705
regards broadcasts in this country but broadcasts in Northern Ireland itself. In Northern Ireland there is a legal party which supports terrorism yet the Government also say that in local elections broadcasters must not report what that party says. Therefore, I ask the noble Earl whether it is not the case that, if the ban is to be meaningful, we must face the fact that the party to which Mr. Gerry Adams belongs should not be permitted to exist unless its members sign a declaration, which everyone who stands for Parliament in Northern Ireland should have to sign, that they are unequivocally against violence, terrorism and all illegal methods of imposing their will upon the United Kingdom.
That was something in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that I agreed with. I did not agree with a great deal of what he said, but I think that if this ban is to be meaningful it can only really be meaningful if Sinn Fein is made illegal as a party. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that otherwise it is an unwise thing to have done. It is unwise because of the international repercussions that it has had. I do not think it is so much unwise as regards the broadcasters because they must learn to live with it. But I think it has had a bad propaganda effect abroad, unhappy though that may be and unwilling as we may be to recognise it. I detect in the Government's policy too great a readiness to leap into action on comparatively small issues of this kind. I am thinking of Clause 28 and a number of other things, for example the insistence in universities upon free speech. I do not know whether the clause that was added to the education legislation at that time has done much to remedy the situation.
It is understandable that the Government should have wished to give some reassurance to the people of Northern Ireland that they were taking the recrudescence of IRA activity very seriously indeed. However, I am afraid that I think that it would have been much more effective and they would have been much more convincing if they had moved to that further political act which I believe we shall have to accept.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I think it is generally agreed that we have debated today an issue of the highest public importance. It relates to the freedom of broadcasters, and broadcasters alone, to report fairly and honestly the terrorist situation in Northern Ireland and the activities of their apologists both there and in the rest of the United Kingdom, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has just observed, to cover the activities of a lawful political party. I hope very much that the noble Earl will come back to that point because he passed over it rather briskly in his speech and it seems to me central to the discussion we have had today.
Having had in the past some direct responsibility both for dealing with the terrorist threat in England and Wales and for broadcasting policy in the United Kingdom, I should like to raise three issues. First, I should like to deal with the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone; that is, the question of
706
the number of directions which have been made by governments of different political parties under the BBC licence agreement. Until this one, there have been four. The first was in 1927 when the original licence was granted to the BBC and directed it not to broadcast its own opinion on current affairs or on matters of public policy. That is the only direction which is now in force.
There was a second direction in 1927 when the BBC was directed not to broadcast matters of political, industrial or religious controversy. That has been withdrawn. In 1955 the BBC was directed to refrain from broadcasting statements or discussions on matters during the fortnight before they were debated in Parliament. That was withdrawn. Also in 1955 the BBC was directed to refrain at all times from broadcasting controversial party political broadcasts other than those arranged in agreement with the leading political parties. That alio has been withdrawn.
I think that that makes the importance of the issue we are debating today abundantly clear. Only one such direction is in existence and that was issued 61 years ago.
What then is the case for this action by the Government? I can do no better than to quote the Prime Minister in her speech at the Lord Mayor's banquet when she said:
"We do sometimes have to sacrifice a little of the freedom we cherish in order to defend ourselves from those whose aim is to destroy that freedom altogether and that is a decision which we should not be afraid to take, because in the battle against terrorism we shall never give in".
I do not think that any of us have any disagreement with the Prime Minister concerning the latter part of that proposition. But does it even begin to explain or give credence to the position the Government have adopted on this matter?
In seeking to justify the decision the Prime Minister has referred to the oxygen of publicity. But does anyone really believe that to prevent Mr. Gerry Adams, an elected Member of the House of Commons, being questioned in a television programme or an elected Sinn Fein councillor being cross-examined on television will reduce the level of violence in Northern Ireland? I listened carefully to the noble Earl in case he sought to make the point. Of course, being an entirely sensible mart, he made no such attempt.
I listened with respect, as I think we all did, to the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, in his speech a few moments ago. All of us listened with great sysmpathy to a man who had an immensely difficult childhood in the hideous situation in Berlin at that time. However, I am bound to say that I am in profound disagreement with a very large proportion of what he said. What he was really arguing for was some form of full-scale military censorship. That was the logic of his position. If he will forgive me for saying so, I found it hard to believe that to have banned Mein Kampf and to have prevented Hitler and his supporters receiving coverage in the German press would have prevented Hitler gaining power in Germany. I think that that is a very far-fetched proposition, if he will forgive me for saying so.

707
More recently, a second argument has been used to justify the Government's decision. It was produced in another place, where it was said that the relatives of those killed or injured find it deeply offensive to hear the apologists for violence speaking on radio or television. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, made exactly that point an hour or so ago. I am sure that that is entirely true, but if that is the argument on which the Government base their case they have to answer a rather different question. That is: if the ban is justified on those grounds why have they applied the ban only to the broadcasting organisations? Why are the press excluded?
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said in his speech that it was necessary to protect citizens from inflammatory voices. However, every day the press of Northern Ireland is filled with statements and interviews with the leaders of the paramilitary organisations justifying the activities of the men of violence. Yet that apparently is not a matter on which the Government choose to act. Why, I wonder, is there that distinction?
It is even more odd when one looks again at the speech made by the Prime Minister at the Guildhall, because she quoted a letter she had received from the mother of a young servicemen who had been murdered by the IRA. That woman said:
"'Where is the freedom of the press, I hear them cry. Where is my son's freedom?' she said".
I can understand the anger of that mother, but that quotation from the Prime Minister is directed precisely at the people not affected by the ban, because only the broadcasting organisations are apparently to be dealt with in that particular way. I should be grateful if the noble Earl could address himself to that paradox.
I come now to the terms of the government notice and the letter of clarification which was issued to broadcasters to explain the full meaning of the notice. Words or statements by terrorists and their supporters can be reported, as has been made clear in the debate today, but not the actuality of their speeches. But again, if we consider the anguish of the bereaved, is it seriously suggested that the statements of Mr. Gerry Adams reported faithfully on the BBC or independent television will not cause those people precisely the same degree of anguish? I am sure it is clear that it will.
The Government notice then forbids the reporting of the actuality of a foreign leader or politician supporting Sinn Fein or the Ulster Defence Association. But if a foreign leader is sufficiently stupid to do either should the British people not have the opportunity—indeed, the right—to hear him say so? What conceivably is the argument against that? The noble Earl told us that he drew some comfort from the fact that any speech made in Parliament can be reported faithfully and the actuality of the voice can be reproduced; but not in the European Parliament for some strange reason, although of course we elect Members of the European Parliament. Again, can the noble Earl help us? Why is it right to allow speeches in this House and another place to be reported but wholly wrong to allow the reporting of speeches in the European Parliament? It
708
seems slightly strange, if the noble Earl will forgive my saying so. Earlier this year, in a particularly impressive "Panorama" programme—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting him. I would not have wished to do so, but it is in order to put him out of his misery. The BBC has a parliamentary obligation to record and report the views of Parliament, which it does not have in respect of the European Parliament.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: With great respect, my Lords, that does not begin to answer the point that I have just made. The noble Earl should address himself to that issue. In my view, quite rightly the Government have chosen not to try to ban the reporting of speeches made in either House of Parliament. The question remains: why is the ban being directed at the European Parliament and not at the House of Commons or the House of Lords? The intervention of the noble Earl, if he will forgive me for saying so, does not begin to answer that point.
Returning to the matter that I was just about to raise, I think that many noble Lords may have seen earlier this year a rather impressive programme on BBC television in which a substantial number of Irish Americans were addressed at a NORAID fund raising dinner by Mr. Seamus Twomey, who was urging them to back the IRA. I believe it is not only right but highly desirable that we should have the opportunity to see our enemies at work and to appreciate why otherwise rational Americans are apparently prepared to finance an organisation whose funds are used to purchase arms for the purpose of killing members of our security forces and many innocent men, women and children. How can banning such a programme help us in our struggle against IRA terrorism? It seems to me to be an extraordinary proposition.
In his article in the Independent on 21st November Mr. Birt asked the pertinent question—and it is a point that was made by the noble Baroness in her speech this afternoon—how will the British public be made aware by television and radio of such events as the long series of discussions which took place this summer between the Social and Democratic Labour Party in Northern Ireland and Sinn Fein? As the noble Baroness said, the BBC programme "On the Record" analysed the position of the two sides and during that programme Mr. Adams was pressed quite aggressively to answer a number of questions which had been put to him by Mr. Hume. As the noble Baroness said, the programme was watched by 2·5 million people and there was not a single complaint received from a member of the public.
Yet the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in justifying the ban said that the case for the direction was the widespread offence caused by such broadcasts. I should like to put another question to him. As I am sure he will accept, on that occasion there were no complaints, yet, as the noble Baroness rightly said, a number of noble Lords at various times have had anguished letters from members of the public complaining about IRA funerals, which in fact become large-scale demonstrations.

709
If we are endeavouring to stop widespread public offence, to use the words of the noble Earl, why do the Government in terms of logic direct this ban to statements made by Mr. Adams and people like him and not to activities of this kind which cause such public anger?
I turn now, if I may, to the second issue to which I wish to refer; namely, the effect that this measure will have on the reputation of British broadcasting. That again is an issue that was touched on by the noble Baroness. When I have in the past attended international conferences on broadcasting I have been struck by the quite extraordinary respect with which our television and radio systems were viewed by the international broadcasting community, by representatives of the American networks, our colleagues in the European Community and broadcasters in the third world. I think that we have acquired this reputation for a number of reasons: because of the quality of our programmes, our reputation for integrity and, sometimes, the courage of many of our programme makers. Above all, I think it is because of the sturdy independence of public service broadcasting in the United Kingdom.
But it is not just broadcasters who have this view. I remember very clearly hearing the then Prime Minister of Sweden and a number of leaders of the German Social Democratic Party speaking with equal warmth of the quality of the BBC World Service. Indeed, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, was with me on that occasion. The reason they held that view was the reputation of our World Service, which is prepared to report the truth even when that truth may be deeply uncomfortable for the British Government of the day.
I believe that that hard-won reputation for integrity is now at risk. Because of the Government's ill-judged action their conduct is now being cited by a large number of enemies of free speech as an attractive precedent. There is President Botha demanding that South Africa's media (I quote him):
"Black out the propaganda of the tyrants".
He states explicitly that if they refuse to do so they should not complain if his government introduce similar measures to those of the British Government. That must cause deep embarrassment and distress to many members of the present Government.
There is the Government of Kenya asking how the Foreign Office can any longer pretend that the British Government have no control over the BBC. As we all know, there have been a number of disputes between the Kenyan Government and the British High Commissioner in Nairobi; that government have applied pressure to ensure that the views of Kenyan exiles in this country should not be reported in the World Service. The high commissioner has said that he cannot do anything as the British Government are not responsible for the BBC. Not surprisingly, in the light of what our Government have now done, the Government of Kenya believe that the British Government can take action.
Then there are the Somalis, protesting that the terrorists are (in their words),
"being given full access to the British media".
710
There are also the Ugandans, demanding that our Government should ban appearances in the World Service of what they describe as Ugandan subversives. And so it continues. It is a thoroughly nasty mess. I doubt whether this Government ever considered properly the full implications of what they were doing.
That brings me to my third and final point. No one who has any experience of dealing with Irish terrorism can fail to recall his emotions when he was told of a new senseless and wicked act of murder perpetrated by the psychopathic killers in Northern Ireland and sometimes about their activities on this side of the Irish Channel. Of course similar emotions have been experienced by German Ministers when confronted with a new act of slaughter by the Bader-Meinhoff gang, by Italian Ministers when told of an assassination by the Red Brigade and by Spanish Ministers when told of a another car bombing by Basque terrorists.
The purpose of terrorism is to destabilise democratic governments. If we over-react—as, in an altogether different situation the French did in Algeria—we can do immense damage to the principles of democracy itself. There is only one method of dealing with terrorists that has any prospect of success and that is by strengthening our security forces and by working patiently with the rest of the international community, in particular our colleagues in the European Community and the United States, to strengthen our co-operation. I believe that a great deal has been achieved already, but, as we are all well aware, it will be many years before there is a realistic prospect of success. All one can say on a day like this is that the decision of the Government which we have been debating is little more than a futile gesture.
I have little doubt that the paramilitaries will discover quite quickly how to evade this measure and I believe that it will make both broadcasters and government look equally silly. I think that it has been a foolish error.
5.49 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Birk explained clearly at the beginning of the debate our essential concerns about the Home Secretary's directions to the broadcasting authorities on 19th October last. My noble friend showed why the official Opposition are taking a different view from that of the Government. She foreshadowed criticisms which have been powerfully voiced by other speakers, in particular by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, and the noble Lords, Lord Bonham-Carter and Lord Harris of Greenwich.
The restrictions imposed on 19th October represent a serious and important matter. And that has been admitted by Government Ministers. Up until the last few months, apart from the abandonment of jury trials for scheduled offences, and sometimes undue delay in bringing accused persons to trial, the Government had been careful not to be tempted by the paramilitaries in Northern Ireland into chipping away and eroding the institutions and principles of a free society which we,

711
who have been brought up in a democracy, believe in deeply. That was the Government's position as defined two years ago by Mr. Nicholas Scott, the then Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office, when he delivered an important speech at the Institute of Foreign Relations in Munich. I should like to read a very short extract from his speech of 18th November 1986:
"If I start from the basis that we have in Northern Ireland a democracy and that it is a liberal democracy, then I believe we are entitled to defend it, but I believe democracies have to be careful in seeking to defend their democracy by not adopting means which play into the hands of the terrorists, and therefore I think we should seek to derogate as little as possible from the normal standards of justice and government which we would normally apply".
We would heartily adopt that passage.
The Government justify this important derogation from normal broadcasting standards on two grounds. They have already been mentioned by almost all the speakers in the course of the debate. I hope that what I have to say will not weary your Lordships. We are told that occasional—to use the word of the Home Secretary—appearances of representatives of the paramilitaries cause widespread offence to viewers. Perhaps the Minister will answer the question asked by my noble friend Lord Ardwick: how much television time was taken up over the past 12 months with appearances by representatives of paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland? May we have the answer to that question, please?
The Minister refers to the widespread offence caused to viewers and listeners. When the Minister winds up the debate, perhaps he will enlighten the House as to how many relevant complaints have been received by the broadcasting authorities, the Northern Ireland Office and the Home Office over the past 12 months. Collectively, have they received thousands of complaints, hundreds, or less than 100. Perhaps the Minister does not know the answer? If the answer is not known, or if the total number is small, I suggest that this should not have been one of the reasons put forward as grounds for the decision.
With the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, I can understand that many people are angered and affronted by the funeral scenes; but those scenes will not be affected by the ban. We should like to know the explanation.
The Government justify the ban partly on the grounds that the terrorists themselves draw support and sustenance from having direct access to radio and television. Although this is a subjective belief, I should have thought that there is precious little evidence of that. Indeed, it is my impression that when paramilitary representatives occasionally appear on TV programmes, they usually lose support for their cause. Many of us can recall cases where representatives have appeared on the box and have been effectively cross-examined and pinned down. However, to the Government, the decision is clear cut and represents common sense. That would also appear to be the view of the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits. But it raises profound issues, patiently and clearly raised by my noble friend Lady Birk, by the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Manchester, and by the noble Lords, Lord Bonham-Carter and Lord Harris of Greenwich.
712
There are in Northern Ireland about 60 Sinn Fein elected councillors. Sinn Fein is a lawful, political party. And that is a substantial number of councillors. However, as I understand it—and the Minister will correct me if I have not understood the directions correctly—a Sinn Fein councillor is no longer able to appear in a television or radio programme to represent the views of Sinn Fein on any subject. Although a councillor, he or she would be banned from appearing in a programme to give his or her party's view on a domestic issue such as the closure of a maternity hospital. Is that fair? Is that reasonable?
So far as I am aware, there is no precedent in the history of broadcasting in the United Kingdom in peace time when Home Office directions have been issued which prohibit a member of a particular group from appearing on television or radio to represent the group's view on any subject. In that belief, I am supported by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. When the Minister winds up, will he confirm that in this decision the Government are not guided by any United Kingdom precedent? In other words, this direction is unique in the history of the United Kingdom.
If the Minister again draws our attention to the precedent to be found in the Irish legislation, we reflect that it is seldom that this Government are willing to take a lesson from the Irish Government or from Irish legislation. Indeed, given the background to the Irish legislation, which has been explained by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, I doubt whether it is a fair parallel. Moreover, the Irish legislation is at least authorised by an Act of Parliament.
Reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 10 expresses the abstract but important principle of the right of freedom of speech in these terms:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority".
As I understand the convention, only the most pressing grounds—which are listed in the article—will justify a derogation from Article 10. We would be interested to learn from the Minister how the Government reconcile the ban with Article 10. Do the Government accept the view of the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote that we are in a state of war with the IRA, with all that that implies? Is that view accepted by the Government?
We have been reminded by a number of speakers—although we do not need to be reminded—of the burden shouldered by the security forces, and of the threat that is posed to human life in Northern Ireland. We are only too conscious of the difficulties in the path of the security forces and those who defend law and order. But whether the measure we are discussing this evening will in practice result in any real help for the security forces and to the defenders of law and order is very much in issue.
This brings me to the last major point. It was made by my noble friend Lady Birk and it underlies so much of what we have been discussing. Whether or not the decision is defensible in principle, what effect

713
will it have on the political situation in Northern Ireland? What can be achieved is almost as important as the issue of principle.
I accept that by this decision and the earlier decision we debated in your Lordships' House a couple of weeks ago to weaken the alleged offender's rights to silence, the Government appear to be signalling that they are stepping up their campaign against the men of violence in Northern Ireland. That may have some attractions for some people provided it does not lead them to believe that there are shortcuts to solving terrorist problems. But that advantage, if it be an advantage, has to be weighed against a substantial disadvantage which flows from the decision.
Our fear is that by this intervention the Government have fallen for one of the well-known techniques of paramilitary organisations for achieving their own political ends and indeed for weakening the democratic system; that is, attack the government in such a way that they will be provoked into creating another issue, another cause and another grievance which the paramilitaries can exploit and so gain sympathy world wide. In Northern Ireland there is a long and ancient consciousness of grievances.
I cannot help pointing out that we were recently reminded in a book review of the wise words written by the late Sir Wilfrid Spender, Cabinet Secretary of the Stormont Parliament for the first two decades of its history. After acknowledging that Northern Ireland could properly claim to have the biggest ropeworks in the world, the biggest linenworks in the world and the biggest tobacco factory in the world, Sir Wilfrid went on to confide to his diary that there was,
"one other factory in which we could probably claim that we or the Free State are the largest manufacturers—namely the factory of grievances".
Alas, only the factory of grievances remains. Here are the Government with another issue which will finish up as a full-blown grievance. Grievances are a recipe for trouble and offer no real hope of stability and reconciliation.
The Home Secretary's statement of 19th October fills us with concern. What we have sought to do from these Benches is to emphasise that we are dismayed with the Government's action in the hope that they will take seriously what we have said and that they will not be tempted to go further down this road which leads to instability.
6.4 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, this has been a debate of some considerable seriousness and it is not surprising that your Lordships have taken that view considering the matter under discussion and considering the matter to which it all refers; namely, terrorism. It is important not to forget the background to this decision. The Government are steadfast in their determination to defeat terrorism. It is a threat, as all noble Lords have appreciated. It is a threat to the stability and the fabric of our society. Not one noble Lord who has spoken of whom I am aware has taken
714
a contrary view to that. But it will be defeated, not by military means alone but by the determined efforts of the security forces backed up by the firm resolve of the whole community in Northern Ireland.
Various measures are being introduced by the Government to ensure that terrorism does not succeed. It is against that background that it makes no sense, in our view, to continue to provide the vioices of terrorism with the publicity and the propaganda opportunites of television and radio. This was made more acute when it became clear that these opportunites were being used not only to persuade but also to frighten. To stand by and allow spokesmen to issue threats to law-abiding citizens would, we believe, be an unacceptable lapse on the part of the Government.
Nor did we believe that it was proper to place the onus of responsibility for denying access to the airwaves on to the broadcasting authorities. They have a difficult enough task, but the circumstances were such that it was necessary for the Government to take responsibility for this decision. That is what we have done. That is the reason we had this debate where the Government's responsibility for that can either be supported or questioned. It was satisfying to find that so many of your Lordships supported the decision.
The noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, said he was sorry that it had to come to a ban, but he said he thought that the Government were right. He has had considerable experience in the broadcasting industry. My noble friend Lord Caldecote, the noble Lord, Lord Moran, my noble friends Lord Massereene and Lord Gridley, all supported the principle. The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, with his considerable experience of the media, gave me the courtesy of saying that one had made a good case. I am grateful to the noble Lord for that because I realise that he is concerned about the ability of the media to retain those benefits which they have already had.
The noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, made what I thought was a remarkable speech. He said that when life and civil liberties were concerned he was on the side of life. He spoke about the freedom of speech and the erosion of civil liberties, which some people feel this is, as a fundamental misconception. If I may say so, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits. His personal knowledge is considerable.
I should not care to get involved with the argument which he had with the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Bonham-Carter, about Mein Kampf. The noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, had good reasons for taking the views he did. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, may disagree with that, but over one matter the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, made a great mistake. With the greatest of respect to him, he said that if only more people had read Mein Kampf they would be better informed and maybe that which happened would not have come about.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I said that if only more people, speaking of people in this country, had read Mein Kampf more carefully, we might have acted more wisely and more resolutely.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I misinterpreted the noble Lord, of course I apologise. But the point I wish to make is that there is nothing to prevent that happening now. All these measures do is to say that the person concerned cannot appear in person on television or on the radio for those purposes. It has nothing to do with the curtailment of the freedom of speech, to which several noble Lords referred: that continues. It is in the mode of dissemination where there is the curtailment.
Noble Lords may believe that that is unreasonable or that it is a form of censorship, but I do not believe that it is. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, shrugs his shoulders. Everything that those people wish to say can be reported in all the various forms in the media, the press and television. Only their actual selves cannot be shown making the speeches, for the reasons that I have given.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked why this stance has been taken against the television authorities and not the press. He knows full well the reason. It is because of the immediacy of the impact of television and radio. I was disappointed by the noble Lord's speech. He is entitled to his views, but, speaking as someone with the responsibilities which I have for my department and answering for it, I was disappointed, to say the least, that he described the action as a futile gesture and a foolish error.
What is the futile gesture? It is preventing people who are promoting terrorism from being actively projected into the houses of law-abiding citizens by means of television and broadcasting. I do not believe that that is a futile gesture or a foolish error. I believe that it is less worthy of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, than his speeches normally are that he should say that.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, governments of different political persuasions, including the noble Earl's own, have turned down the ban which the Government have now introduced. What I said today is entirely consistent with the view shared by a substantial number of people with ministerial experience of terrorism and broadcasting.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is entitled to his view, as I have conceded. I merely expressed the view that I was disappointed that he should have held it in the way in which he did.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, referred to the freedom of speech and said that we are giving the terrorists a propaganda coup. Several noble Lords put forward the argument that we are giving the terrorists the opportunity of stating that they have been denied certain advantages which they have previously held and that others will not understand the Government's action. We are doing what the Irish Republic has been doing for several years. It may be considered that those in the United States will not understand it but there are those who do not believe that our action is manifestly wrong or fundamentally flawed. We did not expect our action to meet with universal approval throughout the United States or elsewhere.
The noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Prys-Davies, asked what the evidence is for taking this
716
action and how many people have telephoned to complain. It is the view of members of the public—approximately 69 per cent. said so in a recent poll—that terrorist organisations should not be allowed to express their views on television. It has been grossly offensive for listeners and viewers to put up with the voices of terrorists using the broadcasting media for propaganda purposes. Therefore it is not without reason that we should take such action.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I asked the noble Earl a question, perhaps in an oblique way, as did the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies. We asked to be told the number of complaints which have been received from the BBC and the IBA and the poll to which the Minister referred.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness the answers to the questions but they are not necessarily so important. The important point is whether terrorists should be permitted to advance their causes via the radio and television media. Of course it is an important and controversial action to restrict that, but governments must take controversial decisions and that is why it was done.
I listened with interest to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. He said that he was surprised and somewhat wounded by headlines about the Church's reaction to South Africa. I do not wish to become involved in that issue, but I must say that I was disappointed by the right reverend Prelate's comments. He said that it is important to hear the views of those who believe themselves to be repressed in Northern Ireland. Nothing that we have done will prevent those views being put forward. He said that injustice still remains in Northern Ireland. Maybe it does; that is a view to which the right reverend Prelate is entitled. However, there are perfectly good, democratic, legal ways of expressing those views and abhorrence—if it is abhorrence.
When the right reverend Prelate implied that he was concerned because the people who promote terrorism will be restricted by the action, I wished only that in its pronouncements the Church would be a little more specific. When it must take an unpleasant decision the Church is anxious to be seen not to be taking it against the minority. However, it is a little like Humpty Dumpty and it does not make too clear on which side of the fence it is falling. I hope that the right reverend Prelate, as I am sure he intended, will denounce terrorism in all its forms, particularly and especially when projected into homes.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. The Churches have made clear their abhorrence of terrorism. However, surely the point is that at the moment Sinn Fein is a legal organisation for which a large number of people have voted. Therefore, it enters into the picture of those who are able to present the injustices faced by their people, especially as these occur in the minds of many people in the United States.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it may be a perfectly legal party, but if it supports and incites terrorism it is for that reason the restrictions have been proposed.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, referred to freedom of speech. That has not been curtailed. He said that it was an essential adjunct to democracy. That is right. The noble Lord has delivered himself of his speech and left the Chamber. I am sorry. The serried ranks of noble Lords opposite have filled up so remarkably that I missed the noble Lord who had removed himself and placed himself elsewhere. He should not regard this as, a "little Englander" mentality. I have tried to explain the reasons why the decision was taken, controversial though it may be. It was not because of any "little Englander" mentality but because we do not believe that it is right for the advocates of terrorism to portray themselves in such a way.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, asked whether a particular statement might or might not be permitted. It is not for me to answer hypothetical questions on how the restrictions might operate in specific circumstances. Directions have been issued to the BBC and IBA and guidance has also been issued in the letter to which the noble Lord referred. Whether that has authority in a court of law will be up to the courts of law to decide. I have no reason to suppose that there is anything in that letter which is other than helpful in trying to explain how the regulations should be carried out.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, said that this was undemocratic. In my view it is not undemocratic. The decision over this matter is an action taken under the licensing agreement of the BBC. Section 13 (4) states:
"The Secretary of State may from time to time by notice in writing require the corporation to refrain at any specified time or at all times from sending any matter or matter of any class specified in such notice".
That was agreed by Parliament, and Parliament gave the Home Secretary authority to do it. Therefore, the Home Secretary has acted wholly democratically and now seeks your Lordships' approval of that.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify my remarks. At no stage did I say that the Government did not have the legal right to do what they have done. I was trying to point out that by doing it within the legal framework without any prior public consultation—and I consider that consultation to be part of the democratic process—they have left themselves in a situation where, not having had advice from the public and other political parties, they have gone ahead with an action which will be counter-productive.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I see what the noble Lord is driving at.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, referred to the proscription of Sinn Fein and asked whether the Government are considering that. The possibility of proscribing Sinn Fein or the UDA is kept under close and continuing review. But it has to be remembered that people should be made answerable to the law for the actions which they take or incite, and not for the opinions they hold or the political parties they
718
support. Although some members of Sinn Fein and the UDA are undoubtedly involved in terrorism, many are not. As a whole the organisations are not actively and primarily involved in the commission of terrorist acts. As such they can be distinguished from the IRA and the UDF which are proscribed.
The noble Lord also referred to a declaration against terrorism which people have to sign before becoming elected. The declaration against terrorism is part of the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Bill which received a Second Reading in another place last week. The declaration, which has long been mooted, is designed to inhibit councillors and members of the assembly from expressing support for, or approval of, proscribed organisations or acts of terrorism and is a response to the difficulties which face local government in Northern Ireland. Your Lordships will have the opportunity to debate that in due time.
We have discussed an important matter today and I should like to reinforce the point that our action to restrict access to the broadcasting media by terrorists and those who go with them is not a criticism of the broadcasters. They always have a difficult and demanding task in the reporting of events in Northern Ireland. As I said earlier, in issuing the notices we felt that this was an action for which the Government, and not the broadcasters, should shoulder the responsibility.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example. Let us consider for a moment what might have happened if the notices had not been in force a few weeks ago when an IRA bomb killed a grandfather and his granddaughter who were nothing other than innocent passers-by. It is quite likely that a spokesman on behalf of the IRA would have appeared on television shortly after the outrage claiming responsibility for it. It is also likely that he would have attempted to explain away the deaths of these innocent victims by reference to the IRA campaign and that it was the Government's fault because of their presence in Northern Ireland. We might well take a few seconds to imagine the distress and the gross offence which such a broadcasting appearance would cause, not only to the relatives of the victims but to all law-abiding people.
I am sure that your Lordships do not believe that it was ever intended that the privilege of broadcasting and the airwaves should be abused in such a manner. The Government took the view that it was clearly wrong that such abuse should be allowed to continue. Nonetheless, I accept that democratic governments need to consider long and hard before introducing measures of this kind, even when they are dealing with the enemies of democracy. Of course we have. That is why it has taken so long to bring these matters forward. We knew that there would be criticism such as your Lordships have expressed this afternoon. However, on balance we thought it right to do so.
We have given considerable thought to these matters. Our conclusion is that we cannot justify giving terrorists and their associates complete freedom of access to broadcasting in order to promote their campaign of violence and tragedy and to sow fear in the minds of ordinary viewers and listeners at home. We have, therefore, taken steps to

719
limit that freedom. Let us remember that freedom also carries its obligations and when those obligations are abused, freedom is inevitably endangered. I hope that in taking note of the Motion before your Lordships the House approves the measures taken by the Government.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Peers' Voting Rights
6.27 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will propose a restriction on the right of Lords to vote in Divisions on the basis of a given number of attendances over a specified period.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in asking this Question perhaps I may say how gratified I am at the interest which has been shown in it and I also thank in advance all noble Lords who have decided to take part in the debate.
I tabled this Question on the Order Paper on 24th May of this year. That was the day following the infamous vote on the poll tax when the Government brought in their so-called backwoodsmen to defeat an amendment of one of their own Back-Benchers, the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, for which there was clearly much support among the regular attenders of this House, Members of another place and certainly in the country as a whole.
Your Lordships will recall that on that occasion the vote, which totalled 500, was the highest since the vote on the Motion to approve the White Paper on the European Communities. On 23rd May the Government mustered no fewer than 317 noble Lords to their Lobby and achieved a majority of no less than 134. It was not only I, members of the Labour Party and members of other minority parties who were shocked and hurt by this brazen use of the Government's in-built Tory majority. Informed opinion, including the bulk of the media, were certainly and sincerely dismayed by that vote and public opinion generally felt that the House of Lords, whose reputation has certainly improved over the past few years—and I think we would all accept that with gratitude—did not, after all, constitute a proper and worthwhile safeguard against an overweening Government backed by an overwhelming and obedient majority in the House of Commons. I have to tell the House that at least some of the Government's own supporters were troubled by that vote on 23rd May. The kindest criticism that could be made was that the Chief Whip had on that occasion indulged in massive overkill.
I make it absolutely clear, however, that I do not criticise the Chief Whip and his colleagues on a personal basis. My experience as an Opposition Whip here, and even more so as a former Government Whip in another place, enables me to understand that Whips will use all proper measures that are available to them to get the maximum number of votes into the Lobby. What I suggest is a limitation on what is available to them. Therefore there is no criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, who does his job for
720
the Government so admirably in this House. I assure him that there is no personal criticism.
However, the dismay at the poll tax vote was certainly reflected in the press on the following day and on subsequent occasions. In my experience of politics over a long period I have seldom, if ever, seen this House given such a lashing as it received on that occasion. I quote from some press cuttings that I have here. The first is from the Guardian—I am sure that the Guardian commends itself to noble Lords opposite. In an article by James Naughtie headed "Thatcher's Lords a-leaping" the opening paragraph reads:
"The Government had to choose last week between the poll tax Bill and the pretence of decency in the Lords. It chose the Bill, and in Monday's triumph, which doubtless echoed through Boodles, Pratt's and the Turf long into the night, questions were raised which some ministers may find it hard to answer.
The sight of 317 Conservative peers queueing up to vote was startling and maybe disturbing, even to some Government whips not noted for their squeamishness. Bertie Denham, the long-suffering chief whip in the Lords who is required to play from a difficult hand, had done well.
But had he done too well?"
Next I come to the Financial Times of 25th May under the headline,
"When seeing leads to disbelieving".
Peter Riddle writes
"Monday's crushing defeat of the poll tax rebels exposed several myths about the Lords. The scene was a cross between Gilbert and Sullivan's lolanthe and Noel Coward's The Stately Homes of England. The Tories' own block vote, the hereditary peers, was mobilised—219 of the 317 on the Government side inherited their titles. This was enough on its own to defeat Lord Chelwood's amendment".
In The Times of 26th May Ronald Butt—a respected figure particularly on the Benches opposite—under the headline "A power forgone" wrote:
"After using their hereditary cohorts against the poll tax amendment on the grounds that the Commons must not be offended, the Tories will have not the slightest ground for encouraging the voting majority of the Lords (even when it consists of working life peers) to resist any dictatorial measure by a future socialist government. So the Constitution has been changed because Mrs. Thatcher committed here self to abolishing the rates, found a substitute hard to devise and finally hit upon a flat-rate tax disliked by many Tories".
My final brief quotation comes from the Observer of 29th May under the heading:
"Lords are cashing in on the poll tax".
The opening paragraph reads:
"The 'backwoodsmen' peers who gave the Government its resounding victory on the poll-tax vote last week will be among the greatest beneficiaries of the new legislation, an Observer survey has revealed".
The article goes on to name a number of peers but in this debate the naming of noble Lords would be invidious and I therefore do not intend to do so.
My action in tabling this Question was not prompted by press comment. I did so because I felt angry, frustrated and affronted that the vigorous and genuine efforts of so many hardworking Members of this House should be brought to nought by an invasion of noble Lords who normally show little or no interest in the proceedings of this House. I therefore asked myself what measures could be taken to eliminate this anomalous position where casual or virtual non-attenders can decide what view the House of Lords reaches on a major issue.
It is well known that the Labour Party has, over a long period of time, believed that the House of Lords should be abolished; but even though people as diverse in their opinions as Roy Hattersley and Tony Benn agree that abolition is the right course, I fear it will be a long time before any realistic move can be made on abolition. In saying that, I notice the Chief Whip is looking at me in a quizzical way. I do not mean that the Labour Party will not obtain office at the next general election; of course it will. However, abolition of the House of Lords will not be a priority in its first parliament. Therefore, it will be a long while before any realistic move can be made in that direction.
The same is true of full-scale reform, short of abolition, since that would require all-party agreement, which I cannot see being achieved in the foreseeable future. Therefore, I concluded that the only real possibility of bringing respectability back to this House lay in restricting the right to vote to those who regularly attend the House. It is probably the only proposal likely to be agreed by all parties within a reasonable period of time. I trust therefore that I shall receive a sympathetic answer from the Chief Whip when he replies.
People have asked me how the system would work. I suggest that a 33 per cent. attendance record, as proposed in the 1968 White Paper on House of Lords reform, might constitute a starting point. Of course the final details can be sorted out after all-party agreement has been reached in principle. Some idea of what that would actually mean in practice can be gained from the report from our own House; from the group on the working of the House in the Session 1987–88 (House of Lords Paper No. 9). According to that paper, if the 33 per cent. rule were to be applied the composition of a working House would be something like this: the Conservatives, 168 Members; the Labour Party, 88; the Liberals, 27; and the SDP, 24. Therefore, in party terms the Conservative Government would have a respectable majority. However, the Independents would number 73 and therefore to get legislation through the Government would have to put forward extremely good arguments. I believe that would be altogether good for the Government. It is therefore possible and feasible to adopt my suggestion.
When I tabled my Question I believed that my proposal had not previously been discussed on the Floor of the House. However, one has to be either a near genius or extremely lucky to do something new in this place, which has existed for over 800 years. I discovered that such a proposal had been made. A Motion had been put forward restricting the voting rights of Peers by the then Marquess of Exeter on 17th March 1953; that is 35 years ago. The Motion that he moved was roughly,
"that no Peer, except that he had obtained leave of absence under Standing Order No. 21, should vote on a division of this House unless he has … attended the House at least x times … during the previous session in which the House has sat for public business on twelve or more days".
So we have had this proposal before.
The debate on that occasion was a good one. But it transpired that the Marquess of Exeter's Motion,
722
even if agreed by the House, could not be carried into effect because this House cannot take away from any noble Lord the right bestowed upon him by law; namely, that once in receipt of a Writ he is entitled to a
" 'seat, place and voice' in Parliament".
Since a voice is taken to mean a vote, that vote cannot be taken away by a simple Motion agreed by your Lordships but only by a Bill passed by both Houses of Parliament and receiving the Royal Assent. That is why the question has to be put to the Government, because I understand that it is only they who can bring forward such a Bill.
Nevertheless, the House has certain powers. If the noble Lord, Lord Denham, cannot give me a good answer tonight we might look at those other powers. They have been looked at by the Select Committee on the Powers of the House in Relation to the Attendance of its Members. Its report was published in January 1956. It transpires that this House has powers to compel Members to attend. I refer to the powers contained in paragraph 40 under the heading "Powers in General". Your Lordships' Committee reported in 1956:
"The House undoubtedly has power to order the attendance of its members and to punish members who disobey such orders by reprimand, by fine or by imprisonment".
Imprisonment, mark you!
A Noble Lord: Hang 'em!
Lord Denham: Order!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: It is even worse than that, because your Lordships have the power to dispatch the Sergeant at Arms to bring in the defaulting Member under arrest. My researches have revealed that this House has considerable powers and if the noble Lord, Lord Denham—
Noble Lords: Order!
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that dispensation from these powers is almost invariably given automatically on request?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I was not aware of that, but I am sure that it would be given. Nevertheless, one begins to wonder when we have such turnouts as we had on 23rd May whether such dispensation should always be given unless there is very good reason. Perhaps that is a subject for another debate.
If the Government do not reply favourably we may have to look at some of those measures. Perhaps they are not realistic in 1988. I urge the noble Lord to give me a favourable reply because the reputation of this House is important to Parliament; it is important to this country and to its people. I hope that he will not give me a dusty answer tonight but will listen to the debate and to the views of the Members of this House and of the public. If the noble Lord does that he will certainly give me some encouragement that the Government do indeed believe in democracy and that this House, properly run and constituted and having proper duties, can continue to constitute a part of that democracy.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, if only on this occasion to be able respectfully to disagree with him and to give some reasons which may commend themselves to your Lordships. It is appreciated that the noble Lord makes no personal criticism of my noble friend Lord Denham. It is also appreciated that the noble Lord, as always with his commendable frankness, in effect accepts that this question is sired by frustration out of anger which is not the best parentage, I suggest to your Lordships, for such a progeny.
One takes the proposal as it stands. The purpose of the proposal is avowedly political. It is to seek to ensure that the Whip to those of us who sit on this side of the House and accept it and no one else—that is, the pious hope or unsettled expectation of my noble friend Lord Denham to carry through the government business— shall be less effective. The proposal does not inhibit Whipping the attendance or contribution of any noble Lord, but only the right to vote. If I am not mistaken it is said that it is only to correct an imbalance of voting strength between the Conservative and Labour parties. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, put it, it is an abuse of an inbuilt majority.
Let us face the question head on. The proposal is erected on an entirly false premise; namely, that there ever could or should be any imposed balance of voting strength in any second Chamber, however constituted, in any democratic society. That is more particularly so if it were to be elected at political hustings. Of course, if it is abolished, cadit quaestio! Even if a temporary balance were to be achieved, whether by accident or design, the equilibrium would inevitably be upset by defections that have happened within living memory from the parties opposite.
This dream, this false ideal, is a false premise of an imposed balance of voting strength. It is a nonsense; and built upon a nonsense we proceed. As we are constituted at present, with Cross-Benches and Spiritual Benches, implementation of this proposal, however, effected, would be impractical; it would debase the standard of our debates and produce a monstrous absurdity. It is much to be doubted whether this indirect approach to seek to correct an imbalance of voting strength is permissible under our constitution. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in effect accepts that such is the case. If noble Lords will forgive a canine metaphor, this Stoddart muzzle muzzles the bite of the lordly dog to curb Whipping by its lordly master.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am not seeking to muzzle noble Lords. They can come to the House and speak as much as they like. However, they will not be able to vote unless they have played a proper part in the proceedings of the House in a previous Session.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I fully understand what the noble Lord is saying. I have already taken the point as he will see in Hansard; but unfortunately he was distracted by the noble Earl, Lord Longford. It is a very good-humoured debate.
724
The right to vote, subject to leave of absence, is but an incident of the oath taken by noble Lords within the remit of the residual powers of the Royal Prerogative. Apart from statute, mental incapacity being one example, no restriction may be placed on the right of any noble Lord to vote.
There is another aspect. The sheer generality of this proposal would be to deprive your Lordships of invaluable advice on matters of great public importance which lie outside the political arena. I have especially in mind the contributions from the Cross-Benches of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. These would be excluded.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Yes!
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I hope that I am not distracting anyone this time. I cannot help supposing that the noble Lord did not understand the point of the intervention. Under the plan of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, the Lord Chief Justice and other eminent people would be allowed to speak to the House, but they would not be allowed to vote. There is no question of our being deprived of thier counsel.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I assure the noble Earl that I did understand. I was about to deal not only with the contribution of the noble and learned Lord but with his vote on an important matter.
Why should this House be deprived of the contribution and the vote of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, whose administrative duties are so vast that he can only seldom attend? It is nonsense. I give as an example the Children Bill. Contributions and votes from any side of the House on the Children Bill are of the greatest importance. If it is said by the noble Earl or by the noble Lord that we must make exceptions for special cases, how shall the basis for exemption be defined? Surely not because of specialist knowledge or expertise, for there are Bills such as the Children Bill where common sense, practical experience and broad principles are of greater importance than any special knowledge or expertise.
Surely on any objective examination—it is reasonable to examine a proposal objectively—this proposal, however implemented, must produce an absurdity. We must ask some questions. What is an attendance? What is an attendance in the meaning of the Unstarred Question? Does an attendance for the purpose of the question involve an obligation just to vote or to make a contribution to the debate? Does it involve working in one of the committees on a particular day? Is that an attendance? Or is attendance just sitting in one's place for a scant period of time? Or has one to sit in one's place and watch the clock? If so, for how long? What is an attendance? What is the noble Lord proposing?
If by some good fortune a Division were to be called, would the vote as such, having removed oneself from the precincts of the Chamber (if I may put it that way) into the Lobby, count as an

725
attendance? If the right to vote is to be based on a given number of attendances over a specified period, surely attendance at one of the committees of your Lordships' House is equally as important as a contribution to debate. How many attendances would be required?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, the White Paper to which we refer stipulates that attendances at committees would count.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the Unstarred Question makes no such concession and is completely unclear as to what is proposed. Even if it were couched in the form in which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, has suggested, still my question arises. How many attendances would be required? The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart,says 33 per cent. What kind of attendances? Over what period? If a contribution to debate is relevant, is any intervention, however short, a contribution to the debate? I welcome interventions because they focus attention on the issue; but these questions have to be defined and answered before any regulatory process can be introduced. And with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, none of them received any attention in his speech.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord invited interventions. He will recall that I wanted to shorten my contribution as much as possible. I said that once the matter had been agreed in principle between the parties, the details could be worked out. In order to save time I did not go into detail.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, that simply will not do. It is no use talking about working out things that cannot be worked out. They cannot be worked out without making a total nonsense. No one has yet devised a viable or operable system. If the noble Lord has one, why has he not so informed the House?
I apologise for taking so long, but I had to accept the interventions as they came. If by and large, subject to the Parliament Act and convention, the will of the elected Chamber were not respected at the end of the day, the retention of your Lordships' House as presently constituted could serve no useful purpose. By and large, the convention of restraint has been exercised by both parties. Assuredly my noble friend Lord Denham, both in the short term, and far more importantly in the long term, was wholly justified—on the poll tax and especially on the steps taken to ensure that the financial privilege of another place should not be infringed as a result of a mere procedural quirk and anomaly.
It has been the declared policy of the Labour Party since 1918 to abolish your Lordships' House. That is its policy today. It is no use the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, saying that it will not happen in the next Parliament. It will be a manifesto commitment as I understand Labour Party policy, and presumably it is proposed to implement it.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again, but it was not in the last manifesto.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it was not in the last manifesto but—and I hope that the noble Lord will agree, because I have studied the subject a little—that was the first manifesto since 1918 which did not in fact include it. But be that as it may, as I understand it it will be in the next manifesto. So what is the use of worrying about the last manifesto? I simply do not understand the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, when he says that it is a matter that really will not happen before this and that.
I conclude on this observation. The important aspect is this: in the case of noble Lords who would wish to abolish this Chamber as a matter of policy and who have only to produce a monstrous and manifest absurdity, is there any need for further justification for their case for abolition?
7 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, it was felt in that backwater—or should I say that important tributary—of the usual channels which I inhabit that someone ought to make clear the approach of the democrats (that is, the Social and Liberal Democrats) to the grievous problem to which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has drawn our attention this evening. I fear that this means that mine will be a relatively humdrum contribution to the debate. I shall leave it to my noble friend Lord Russell to remedy the inevitable deficiencies of my speech both in historical perspective and entertainment value.
The immediate short-term problem is this. Since your Lordships' proceedings came to be televised there are more people in the country who know a little bit more and are therefore able to take more interest in what goes on in this House. So when some unpopular outrage is perpetrated in another place, such as the poll tax, eyes or teeth, no matter what it concerns the press immediately sets about raising the hopes of the public—the long suffering public—that the House of Lords will intervene in the nick of time, like the seventh cavalry, and snatch victory out of the jaws of defeat.
However, what actually happens is this. The great day comes and behold, what looks like two or three busloads of noble Lords with venerable titles and unfamiliar faces converge upon this place, make their way, not without difficulty, into the government Lobby and bulldoze the offending measure on to the statute book. The public is bitterly disappointed and we all look mighty foolish.
If I were to sum up our position on these Benches in one sentence I would say that we applaud the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and certainly the charm and humour with which he posed his Question, but we are not sure that he has hit upon the right solution. I shall await with great interest the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Denham. However, I shall not be surprised if he finds quite a number of practical and legal difficulties in the noble Lord's proposal. Even if practical, it would be no more than a palliative because it does not tackle the real

727
problem, which is the archaic composition of the House. I believe that there may still be a House of Chiefs in Fiji, but apart from that I think that we are unique in the 20th century.
Our attitude towards the wider question of House of Lords reform can perhaps best be conveyed by a quotation from a publication optimistically entitled The Time Has Come which preceded the drawing up of the Alliance manifesto in the last election. It says:
"The Alliance Parties believe that reform of the House of Commons must be matched by reform of the Second Chamber. It is unacceptable that there should still be a legislative role for peers merely by virtue of heredity. We need a reformed Second Chamber which includes an elected regional dimension".
That leaves many a "t" uncrossed and many an "i" undotted, an omission which I hope will be repaired in time for the next general election.
I take it that it is almost unnecessary for me to add that a reform of the system by which the House of Commons is elected must form a central element of any constitutional reform. A system which contrives that a party supported on polling day by a bare third of the electorate can muster an impregnable majority in the House of Commons is not only an anomalous absurdity; it is also incidentally the root cause of several of the fiascos of the last Session of this Parliament to which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has drawn our attention.
If the composition of the House of Commons had been even roughly proportionate to the wishes of the people, does anyone believe that the iniquitous poll tax would ever have reached this House?—surely not.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will give way for a moment. I wonder whether he has recollected that on that historic vote in this House it was in fact a majority of the independent Peers who supported the Government and therefore the whole of his argument based upon the apparent lack of representation falls to the ground.
Lord McNair: My Lords, with respect, I do not think that it does fall to the ground. If the House of Commons had been constituted as I described, I do not think that the Motion would ever have emerged and come along the corridor.
I return to the composition of this House. I suggest that in the next few years it will become increasingly apparent that we must make some changes which will enable our MEPs to play a greater part in the deliberations of our own national Parliament to build a bridge, as it were, between Westminster and Strasbourg. If we fail to do this, our lines of communication will break down.
Perhaps I can best conclude by reminding your Lordships of what was said in a thought-provoking way about the problems of bicameralism by that aphoristic savant The Abbé Sieyès. He said:
"A Second Chamber either agrees with the Lower House, in which case it is superfluous: or it disagrees, in which case it is pernicious".
I profoundly disagree with the Abbé and would add a reasoned amendment to his dictum which would read:
"But if the Lower House cannot guarantee to examine all legislation in detail, then a Second Chamber is essential".
728
With all our imperfections I think that that is what we are.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I confess to finding myself a little surprised that this debate is taking place at all. However, since it is, I think it perhaps not inappropriate that someone who is a hereditary Peer should speak from these Benches. It is generally supposed that we on these Benches have no friends. But we have compensations for it: we are allowed our independence. However, sometimes it is removed altogether; it only needs the creation of a new peerage for us to be homeless for at least the first part of the afternoon.
There was however a moment of excitement in what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said when suddenly I thought that far from being an island of independence in this great political sea all around us we might—all 73 of us whom he would allow to vote in these matters—hold the balance of power. This is indeed heady stuff. But I doubt whether these not entirely full Benches this evening would go along with my sense of excitement, so I shall leave it to one side.
I think that the serious point is that there is within your Lordships' House a vast reservoir of experience and wisdom. Not a subject under the sun arises but a few, and sometimes many, of your Lordships have a wealth of experience and technical expertise in such matters. Further, the combined weight of your Lordships adds up to a great deal or ordinary old-fashioned human wisdom.
This combination of expertise and wisdom is governed by no factor whatever. It has nothing to do with age; it has nothing to do with wealth; it has nothing to do with geography. It has, I think, nothing to do with the nature of the peerages which entitle your Lordships to sit in this House. It is not the prerogative only of Life Peers, however well deserved those peerages may be, to be wise or experienced or to be able to help your Lordships; and certainly it has nothing whatever to do with regularity of attendance. There are countless debates in which an enormous amount of valuable expertise and guidance is provided to this House by people who very properly do not attend many more debates because they feel, as I often do, that there are debates about which they simply do not know enough to take part. They tend to restrict their appearances to those subjects on which they can at least be helpful to this House and the nation in general.
If that is the case, it seems to me that to suggest a qualification of attendance is wrong. It would simply mean that a very large proportion of the wisdom and experience available to your Lordships was reduced to the status of mere consultancy. To have a lifetime of experience in something, to be allowed to speak on it and then to be denied the opportunity of voting, giving, as it were, teeth to your opinion—if that is not too mixed a metaphor—seems to me to be entirely wrong.
The solution to this problem, if it is a problem and not merely a complaint, seems to me to lie in your Lordships' hands entirely. Political loyalty is a phrase that is often invoked, but usually simply because

729
there is some kind of dichotomy in the mind of somebody about to vote between what his party directs him to do and what he thinks is sensible. This is often brought out as a matter of conscience, but conscience is something which occurs only in the major issues of the time. Very often it is simply a matter of believing things to be mistaken or amendments to be necessary. Political loyalties are invoked on every side.
I am well aware that obligation and friendship play some part in these matters. I am also quite aware of the charismatic influence of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and other noble Lords who find that Whips are an essential piece of furniture in their office. But what surprises me is the number of your Lordships who respond to it. However charismatic they may be, it seems to me that this House is properly constituted to represent a very great deal of independence of spirit and independence therefore of voting. I am constantly astounded that people who so far as I can see have absolutely no reason to do so should respond to a Whip. There is nothing to prevent those noble Lords who are Whips from using their very best endeavours upon these people, but I think that there is more voting by party than there should be. I wish that it were less. I should have thought that your Lordships' House was the very place where that spirit of independence ought to be encouraged.
This is a Question to the Government whether they will make recommendations about the ability of Lords to vote. For all these reasons, I hope very much that they will not.
7.13 p.m.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for airing a generally felt grievance. I hope that he will not regard me as discourteous if I say that perhaps a little of the edge of his argument was taken off when he made it perfectly clear that all he was doing was arranging for me to have an opportunity to straighten my tie before going to the guillotine. That is not a very serious proposition. Despite what I imagine the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is going to tell us, the Labour Party official policy is that the House of Lords should be abolished in its present form but not immediately—and for that we are very grateful. That is not my view, and of course I no longer have the privilege of being a member of that party.
I share the view of the noble Lord. Any proposal which could be accepted—of course, it is unlikely to be—which would accentuate the need for this House to become more and more of a work-house rather than a House attended on what I might call, despite what we have just heard, a somewhat dilettante basis, would have my support. It is shown by the number of those who attend regularly that it is becoming more and more a House of working Peers, and that is all to the best.
Until we have a thoroughgoing reform of your Lordships' House, in my view we can only work on the basis of complete equality, whether man or woman, whether seventh Earl or newly-created Life
730
Peer. One cannot justify logically the composition of this House, and there are many ways in which it can be reformed and should be reformed. However, it should be reformed in a major way and not in any minor way, meeting the kinds of difficulties that have been proposed. Once one starts on the road of selecting those Peers who should be entitled to vote, where will it finish?
The priority suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, would not be my priority. My priority for excluding Lords from voting would be every single hereditary Peer who has an elder sister—every single noble Lord who comes here and votes for a sex discrimination Act and then proceeds to participate in a system under which the child entitled, by being the first born, to participate in your Lordships' House and to enjoy one of the greatest honours in the country is excluded from that on one ground only; namely, that she is a woman. That would be my priority in dividing Peers into voting Peers and non-voting Peers.
I am bound to say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that once one starts on part reform one gets into the kind of difficulty which he illustrated. He chose the vote of the Lord Chief Justice.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me and allow me to intervene? He said that it was restricted to the first male child to be allowed to enter your Lordships' House and inherit the title. That is not quite correct because it depends entirely on the way in which the Peerage was granted in the first place, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I do not want to get bogged down with the detail; otherwise it would take too long. We have had this point many times before, and this is mainly what occurs.
I raise the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, merely to illustrate the total illogicalities with which we are faced in the present way in which the Chamber is constituted and run. The noble Lord was very anxious that the Lord Chief Justice should have the right to vote in your Lordships' House. The basis of democracy, as he, a distinguished lawyer, will acknowledge, is the separation of the judiciary from the legislature. We have a situation in which we somehow or other manage to make it work—not entirely satisfactorily—where you have a number of Law Lords participating in the legislation. If the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, had my problem of trying to explain to many distinguished visitors from the Commonwealth what a great democracy we are and how the House of Lords is the champion of democracy, he would find that that aspect presents a little difficulty. Let us not pretend that we are not full of illogicalities. However, we are experts at making the illogical work somehow or other.
I come back again to this: I think that the only principle on which we can work is that each Peer is the keeper of his or her own conscience. He alone must be responsible for what he says and what he does. He must be free to take advice from the Whips as to what he should do and either to accept it or to

731
reject it, and he must be entitled to take advice from any Whip to whom he chooses to go—even the noble Lord, Lord Denham. That is the only basis on which we can work. I can think of no formula that fits our traditions, the practice of our House and the aspirations which I am sure all noble Lords share other than that each of us should be regarded as one among equals.
7.21 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I have too much respect for the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, to wish to disconcert him unnecessarily, but I cannot help recalling—although my memory is not what it was—that he was a distinguished Member of the Labour Government of 1968 which produced a plan under which there would have been a very selective arrangement whereby hereditary peers would have been allowed to attend but not to vote. The noble Lord joined in responsibility for that. Time has moved on. I shall not pursue the topic.
I support the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. It happens, for reasons I shall not inflict on the House, that I have been asked quite often in public lately whether I think the House of Lords is a good thing. I recall, as many do, what Mr. R. A. Butler, as he then was, said about his Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden:
"He is the best Prime Minister that we have".
I should say that the House of Lords is the best second Chamber that we have. I am in favour of a second Chamber; I want there to be no doubt about that.
When we consider the Chamber, we can hardly regard it as perfect. I never got as far as the House of Commons. The superior eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, denied me that chance in an election many years ago. With all due diffidence, it seems to me that we are its superior in many ways. Our manners are better. We are kinder to each other. We have more knowledge and more wisdom, we like to think. I use a word introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett. We are therefore a very fine House in terms of debate. I do not underestimate the influence that can be exerted in debates over a period.
When it comes to voting, of course, the place is a sick joke; it is an absurdity. No one really questions that. It is quite indefensible. The real point is whether anything at all ought to be done about the voting system. We want to continue as far as possible the influential, wise and delightful discussions and the life that we enjoy so much. But any dispassionate observer from outside would certainly say that something ought to be done about the voting system. No other country has copied, or is the least likely to copy, it. It has just grown, and here we are with it.
If I speak about reform, I do not want to seem to be speaking from a Labour Party point of view only—although I do speak partly from that point of view. From our point of view it is intolerable that—when I last looked—between 300 and 400 Members take the Conservative Whip and rather more than 100 Members take the Labour Whip. That is an absurd imbalance. No one would constitute a
732
chamber in any civilised world with that kind of composition.
I shall not pursue the question of how far the Conservative Government—I do not want to get involved in what would happen under a Labour government—of today have an automatic majority. We are all aware that the Government are beaten quite often. That is of course a feature of a part-time House. I am all for a part-time House. I think that all the famous wisdom and the contributions would be much less weighty if we had to attend full time; so I am all for a part-time House.
We all know the situation. The Government can be and have been beaten quite often in the past few years, but when they want to pull out all the stops they always win. It is a question of whether on a particular occasion they want to pull out all the stops, or how many stops they want to pull out. The question of the poll tax has been dealt with.
We might consider the matter of charges for eye testing, which arose recently. When that was discussed in the House, plenty of Conservatives did not like the charges at all, together with Independents and Labour and SDP Members. Two hundred and fourteen Members voted, and the Government were defeated. The matter went back to the House of Commons, and it scraped through by eight votes. It was brought here again, and 464 Members voted. Twice as many voted when it came to the pinch. Whether we think it is a lovely, a ridiculous, or an indefensible plan, that is the situation.
The question is whether anything can be done in practical political terms. Here I look at matters more from the Conservative point of view. The pressure for reform of this Chamber is no new thing but—until1968 anyway—it came almost entirely from the Conservative side. For various reasons, I happen to have had occasion to look into all that, but I shall not weary noble Lords with my researches. In 1907 Lord Newton, a Conservative Peer, introduced a Bill that prevented the automatic right of a hereditary peer to a seat in the House of Lords. Eighty years ago that was a Conservative initiative.
There were all kinds of other proposals—nearly all Conservative proposals—for reform. In one way or another they have all been defeated. Proposals were put forward, for example, by a Conservative government in 1927, and private Members' Bills were introduced by Conservative Peers in 1929, 1933 and 1935. The initiative for reforming the House, recognising that the composition of the House is really indefensible, has come from the Conservative Benches.
Quite a number of noble Lords would have been Members in 1968. I was Leader of the House at that time. I took the initiative in making a proposal that only Peers who had been awarded their peerages should be allowed to vote; hereditary peers should come and make the contributions that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, values so highly, but would not be allowed to vote. That was agreed by the two Front Benches. After I resigned from that government, a lot of work was done on the proposal particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, on the Conservative

733
side, and by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and, in the other place, Mr. Crossman, on our side.
An agreement was reached between the two parties to abolish the hereditary right of Peers to vote. It was sabotaged in the other place because the Back Benchers on the extreme wings did not want this House of Lords to be rational; that is, so far as I could understand the motivation of the other place. Thus it was sabotaged after an agreement had been reached. Let no one assume for a moment that the Conservative Party throughout the century has stood for the automatic right of those who inhereit titles to come and vote; quite the contrary.
Since that time there have been one or two Conservative initiatives. An exceptionally strong Conservative committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Home, and including the noble Lord, Lord Blake, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in 1978 published proposals for a second Chamber which would have had a combined basis of election and nomination. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in an impressive and absorbing book has come out for an elected second Chamber. I do not know whether anyone has had time to read the book. If they have, they may not have welcomed that proposal. One of the most eminent Conservatives of the day now favours an elected second Chamber; so do not let us talk as though suggestions for reform come from wild, fanatical lefties who want to destroy the whole institution. I have given facts, whether or not the House finds them acceptable.
My noble friend Lord Ponsonby may go into more detail about the proposal put forward by my noble friend Lord Stoddart. I shall not detain the House. If anyone wonders whether these proposals are practical, they can look at the 1968 White Paper to which I have already referred. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, will find in it that some of his questions are answered. No doubt further work will need to be done on the details. I dare say that my noble friend Lord Ponsonby will go into that point.
I repeat that the main feature of the 1968 proposals was that hereditary Peers would lose the right to vote but would be allowed to speak. That 1968 agreed proposal contained an arrangement of the kind proposed by my noble friend Lord Stoddart.
The noble Lord, Lord Denham, has an exceptional position. In my 43 years here, there has never been a Chief Whip who was at once more astute and more popular. If one can be astute and popular, one achieves more than is usually given to mortal men.
I recognise that the proposal made by my noble friend Lord Stoddart, however it is worked out, might add to the difficulties of the noble Lord, Lord Denham. With his infinite resourcefulness, he will overcome those difficulties. He should not be intimidated by the proposals. I ask him to consider my submission that reform of the composition of the House is in the great tradition of his own party. I hope that he will give us some encouragement in that direction this evening.
7.33 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, I disagree with the proposal before your Lordships' House. I wish to speak from personal experience. When I was first created a Baroness in 1981 I attended your Lordships' House on average on two days a week. When Mr. Whitelaw, as he then was, the Home Secretary, appointed me in 1983 as chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission, it was on the clear understanding that I would spend an average of two days a week at its headquarters in Manchester. Over the five years of my appointment, I carried out that undertaking, and worked much more than a full-time week, including travelling all over the country speaking generally on the importance of equal opportunities for men and women.
Lord Diamond: Hear, hear!
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. During that five years, m y attendance in your Lordships' House was naturally abysmal. My statutory duties lay elsewhere.
However, when the second Sex Discrimination Bill passed through the House, I was present on all occasions, to speak, to vote and I hope to influence the Government to change the Bill for the better. Your Lordships may recall that I put forward an amendment which, with the support of noble Lords on the Opposition Benches, was carried against the Government. Had an arrangement such as that suggested today been in force, I should have been prevented from doing that, and therefore in my view prevented from carrying out my statutory duties. I hope that your Lordships will agree that it would also prevent someone with specialised knowledge in a particular field from casting his vote based on practical experience of the subject before the House. That is my experience, which I know is not unique. Other noble Lords have for periods of time been placed in a position similar to that which we have heard of tonight. I hope that your Lordships will not follow the suggestion put before you tonight.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, from her vast experience and hard work, may I ask her what proposals her group is making about elder daughters being ignored in respect of attending your Lordships' House?
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Lord what is available in that respect. However, I like the idea of elder daughters having that right. I also know that peerages have been created over the centuries in different ways.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, many of your Lordships will have expected my distinguished noble friend Lord Moran to rise to his feet at this juncture. I am sorry to have to disappoint you, but in the perhaps inevitable pre-Christmas confusion a printing error would seem to have substituted his name for mine on the list of speakers.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, for drawing attention to a problem which has had many of us uneasy for months and in some

735
cases for years. The moral legitimacy of this House in its legislative capacity surely rests upon two pillars. The first is tradition, or our unwritten constitution if one prefers. The second is the existence of a good degree of public support—not of course unanimous support—for the House and for the work that it does.
I am not qualified to talk about the pre-war years, but to the best of my memory the House has always enjoyed a reasonable degree of public support from World War 2 onwards, even during the fiercely egalitarian middle and late 1940s and the fun-revolutionary middle and late sixties and early seventies. All that support was in evidence, notwithstanding the cartoonists' cliché, which is still with us—albeit an essentially good-humoured cliché—depicting the typical Peer with his drooping white moustache, his hearing aid and his walking stick, garbed in his robe and coronet. But in recent years the House has moved from being merely tolerated to being positively popular. That is partly due to its proceedings being televised, an experiment I freely admit having strongly opposed at the outset. Even more is it due to the fact that the House has defeated the Government on more than 100 occasions since 1979, almost always in responsible circumstances and a responsible manner rather than in any flippant or lighthearted way.
Such a development appealed to most voters, including one suspects a majority of Conservative voters who are no less inclined than the rest of their countrymen to feel that over-mighty institutions, which category includes governments with massive majorities in the other place, need to be humbled from time to time.
Now all that great good will towards this House seems to have evaporated almost overnight. Of course, popularity should never be an end in itself, and there is a case for saying that it is just as well that the honeymoon period of excessive popularity is over. It was never realistic to suppose that one can or should please all of the people all of the time; but the pendulum has swung alarmingly far in the other direction, thereby challenging the moral legitimacy of the House. Why should that be? The catalyst of course was the evening of what we conveniently term the great poll tax Division.
The following day, The Times suggested that no fewer than 60 backwoodsmen turned up to swell the government Lobby. Rather more charitably, I should have put the total of, let us say, infrequent attenders at 49; other noble Lords may have arrived at different totals, but whether the figure be 60, 49 or some other number of that magnitude, it still seemed to many people to be excessive. The tragedy is that it was not even necessary. The Government could have won handsomely without scouring the shires to such an extent.
To turn up once in a blue moon to vote on an important issue which is not strictly party political (for example the death penalty) might just be justifiable—I remain open-minded on that point—but to do so on a strictly party political issue on which one is most unlikely to have heard the arguments in any detail, if at all, is quite another
736
matter. One senses that most members of the public, irrespective of party, are shocked at this state of affairs and do not approve at all. I must say that I considered many, if not all, of the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, to be well founded.
I suggest that one possible step in the right direction would be to tighten up the leave of absence rules. Finally, I wish to point out that the emotions of those of us on these Benches, however few or many we may be, who happen to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, are most certainly not:
"sired by frustration out of anger",
as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, suggested.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, this debate could quite easily have devolved into farce as the Denham dilemma, or Bertie's backwoodsmen. But I am glad in a way that it has been much more serious than that. There is the funny side of course because we are a complete anachronism. We in this country call ourselves a democracy and yet we are ruled by a parliament that is so undemocratically constituted as to be a laughing stock to the rest of the world. It is only the good manners of the rest of the world which prevents it from laughing at us all the time. Unfortunately, some of our actions are changing that and I suspect we are becoming a bit of a laughing stock.
It is quite interesting that just about the only aspect of this Chamber's operations that is democratic is the way we relate one to another. We are considered equal, we have equal speaking rights and we have equal voting rights among each other. That I think is a great credit to us. The problem, and the question that we are really discussing tonight, is raised by the whole hypocrisy of our very existence. We are not debating the way we conduct our business, but what we do in relation to the governing of the country, what relationship we hold to the other Chamber and what relationship we have to our monarch.
Some people espouse the idea that the House of Lords is a backstop against an all powerful House of Commons. Others espouse the belief that we are a repository of specialist knowledge and wisdom and that our object in life is as a revising Chamber, giving the impression of going through Bills line by line, correcting the grammar and the spelling and making sure that everything is correct. But in practice we are a very political Chamber. That is something that the public at large does not appreciate. Many people involved in this House, who only attend occasionally, do not appreciate how political we are. We are divided on party lines—dare I say it?—in the old county tradition where there is always a good number of independents on the county councils. But those of us on the Labour Benches always knew and recognised those independents as unofficial Conservatives. The way they voted, virtually on a 100 per cent. basis, demonstrated that to us.
I express the following idea rather differently from the way other noble Lords have expressed it. I believe there are approximately 1,300 people eligible to sit in this House. Out of that number, approximately 120

737
are Labour Party members. Therefore, the Labour Party, Her Majesty's official Opposition in the House of Lords, constitutes one-tenth of the membership. On that basis there is an overwhelming Conservative majority.
The interesting thing is—dare I say it?—how inadequately the noble Lord, Lord Denham, performed up until shortly after the election in 1987. He seemed to be able to lose vote after vote. But when we realise the implications of that, we see that there were two implications. First, it created an illusion of the odd nine-day wonder that the Conservative Government were being defeated. Secondly, it created an illusion that the House of Lords was a good place.
But, in practice, the Bills put forward by the Conservative Government were only changed in the margins. The Bill to abolish the metropolitan counties and the GLC went through with, admittedly, some minor amendments; but the reality is that we no longer have a GLC, and we no longer have the metropolitan counties. The destruction occurred of that whole tier of democracy. Here we can see the flaw in the Conservative myth that the House of Lords is a backstop against an all powerful House of Commons.
We are a political Chamber and we are an anachronism. So, what is the practical use of the House of Lords? I suggest that it has one practical use and that is as a retirement home for senior members of the establishment, whether Members of another place who have retired or retired people from the City or retired people who have occupied senior positions in the trade union movement. It is a happy resting place for them and it keeps them out of mischief. It gives them somewhere to come, have a drink, chat with their friends and, if they feel like it, think that they are doing something useful. That is quite a useful thing to have; but that I think is the only useful function of the House of Lords.
We then come to considering how we might change the form of government in this country, because that is what we are talking about. I suggest that there is not the popular will to have what effectively would be a revolution to get rid of the House of Lords and the monarchy and just have the House of Commons as the government. I do not think at this stage that there is the popular will for that to come about. But we have over the years evolved a constitutional monarchy whereby the monarch takes advice from Parliament and, so far as I am aware, never disagrees with that advice. A monarch has the capacity in theory to refuse to sign a Bill; but in practice he always accepts that advice.
In practice, I believe the best way of dealing with the problem of the House of Lords is to turn it into a constitutional Chamber. The way to do that would be for all Bills to start in the House of Lords, in order to benefit from the undoubted wisdom of the assembled company. There are some tremendously powerful individuals in this Chamber with tremendous abilities to offer in terms of giving advice. Bills would be considered here first. Having been deliberated
738
upon, in another place, they would then go on to the House of Commons. Thereafter we would have nothing more to do or say about them. The constitutional niceties could be observed and the Bills could come back for consideration of Commons amendments, for example.
But there would be no more amendments to the Bills after the House of Commons had effectively done with them. In that way we could retain our say and we could observe the constitutional niceties, but we could also demonstrate to the world and the people of Britain that we in this country are a democracy, because at the end of the day the elected representatives of the people would have had the final say. I have probably spoken for too long, especially as it is the second time that I have spoken today. I shall leave noble Lords with those remarks.
7.50 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, seemed to be most concerned with equal opportunities and fairness for all. I think I have a possible solution to his concerns which would obviate the necessity of trying to implement some of the ideas underlying the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. Far from restricting Members of this noble House from attending, why not consider creating a whole lot more hereditary Peerages, only this time they might be entailed general as opposed to entailed male. I am sure that would meet with the approval of my noble friend Lady Platt.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, will not think that I am saying to him personally that he is thoughtless, inconsiderate or presumptuous, but I would say that the proposal behind the Question is to an extent a mixture of all three. First, it is thoughtless because it has not been thought out in terms of what the knock-on effect will be. Various noble Lords have already pointed that out.
There is another area which has not been pointed out. At the moment we have the right to attend and to vote in this House and therefore we do not have the right to vote at a general election. If any Members of your Lordships' House were to find that their right to vote was removed they would have to have the right to vote in a general election. If that were to happen and certain noble Lords were barred from voting for a particular length of time or in particular Sessions, can one imagine the machinations which would have to go on in the offices of the registrar to decide who would be able to vote, when and where?
The proposal is inconsiderate. It is inconsiderate to many noble Lords who do not appear to attend your Lordships' House regularly to describe them as having no interest. I think that that is somewhat unfair and slightly offensive. We have already been given two very good examples—the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and my noble friend Lady Platt. There are many other noble Lords who carry out an enormous amount of work and business which precludes them from attending. Because they are loyal to the party to which they belong, be it Conservative, Liberal, SDP or Labour, they will make tremendous efforts to come when asked to do so on matters of great importance. I think

739
therefore that it is inconsiderate to suggest that those who are prepared to make such efforts should find their services, however apparently scant, rewarded in such a way.
It is also presumptuous. It is presumptuous because it is assumed, certainly I think by the noble Lord who tabled the Question and perhaps by many of his noble friends, that Conservative Peers will automatically support their party if Whipped in. No chief Whip could ever automatically assume that that would be the case. Indeed, I know that the other day my noble friend the Chief Whip welcomed one of his noble friends whom he had not seen for some time and thanked him most profusely for coming so far to help the Government's cause. To his utter horror and chagrin he found him walking through the Opposition Lobby. One can never take anything in this life for granted.
The reason for the concern of noble Lords opposite which has given rise to the Question springs from the feeling that they cannot command a majority against the Conservative Party because they know that unfortunately a large number of hereditary Peers happen to support the Conservative Party. One has to ask oneself why that should be so. Gilbert said:
"That every boy and every gal,
That's born into the world alive,
Is either a little Liberal,
Or else a little Conservative!"
Indeed, yes; one might be born a hereditary Peer but one is not born a herditary Labour Party supporter, Conservative Party supporter or Liberal Party supporter, or what you will. People change their affiliations.
Why do they change their affiliations? They do so because they like and are attracted by the policies of the party to which they wish to belong and what that party stands for. If over the years since the war the policies of the parties of noble Lords opposite have not been such as to attract the many backwoodsmen who appear to take no interest in politics, one has to say to noble Lords opposite: why not think about the things which you are expounding and stand for? Perhaps if one were a little more radical and not so determined in other ways one would have better support. If that were done, the balance of voting strength which has been referred to might be better than it is at present. Surely it is better to achieve that by natural causes rather than by these proposed artificial means.
7.56 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, will I think understand that I share the frustration which has led him to bring this Question forward. In the time since I have been a Member of this House I have I believe voted in the government Lobby once. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, may forgive me if I remind him that that was on the Firearms Bill. I fancy that he was in the same Lobby.
I have been in this House and in the anti-government Lobby on all the days in the past year when the backwoodsmen have been present. On 8th November last I heard that the noble Lord, Lord Denham, was asked how many times I had voted
740
against him that day. The noble Lord said, "He only voted against me twice because I only gave him the chance to do it twice. He would have voted against me 17 times if he had had the chance". I think that the noble Lord understands me very well. It is in that spirit that I make my remarks about the Question.
I share the frustration. If we have won the argument, if we have won the support of the public outside, as on all three of those occasions we had, it is extremely frustrating to find that we are defeated by the ability of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, to call spirits from the vasty deep. However, though the noble Lord has uncovered a major cause of concern, like my noble friend Lord McNair I am not convinced that he has found the correct remedy.
My concerns about the proposal are connected with liberty. Liberty has something to do with rights, a patchwork collection of rights, here and there and wherever you do not expect to find them. The more those rights cause inconvenience, the more those rights are a guarantee of liberty. The right to attend this House is among them.
I shall touch only briefly on the perfectly practical point that this proposal would deprive us of the services of those noble Lords who hold the perfectly proper view that they should not attend and vote unless they know something about what is being debated. If, for example, on the Education Bill my colleague the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, had been told that as a living, working, vice-chancellor he was not entitled to vote on the position of vice-chancellors, I think that the House would have been the poorer. After the division on the Local Government Finance Bill the Guardian published a list of those Peers who had voted in that division but who had not voted in 10 divisions during the past year. I looked at that list carefully. It intrigued me to see included the name of the noble Lord, Lord Barber, whom we heard recently in the debate on the humble Address. Whatever anybody may say about the noble Lord, Lord Barber, he is not a man without political experience. In debating the actions of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer it would, I think, be a great mistake and a great derogation from the rights of the House if we were to deprive ourselves of the services of the last Chancellor to make the same mistake.
There are also those noble Lords, junior Members of this House, who have full-time employment in other places. I hope that the House can benefit from their presence. I must confess that I was quite taken aback to hear the proposal by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for a 33 per cent. attendance record. I came to the House believing that I was coming here to defend the rights of others. I am somewhat startled to find that I am defending my own rights, and much relieved that I had decided to take a disinterested stance before I was aware that I was in any way threatened. However, I must confess that as a servant of this House I take amiss a proposal which would deprive me of the right to remain one.
I think that it is also worth considering the relationship of Members of this House to each other. In 1621 an incident took place in this House which I think some noble Lords will understand a lot faster

741
than many of my professional colleagues. An enormous row took place between Lord Spencer and the Earl of Arundel. The House, with a delightful right and left, decided to reprove Lord Spencer for calling the Earl of Arundel "a great Lord". It said: there are no great Lords among us; the greatest Lord that is lays down his greatness at the door. My Lords, I think that that was a good principle.
If there are no great Lords then there are no little Lords. Still less should there be any lesser Lords without the vote. The principle that all Lords count equally is, I think, important. I do not want to be a party to a proposal to make some Lords less equal than others.
I ask noble Lords to forgive me if I speak personally for a moment. Coming to this House as a new Member and facing the full weight of an extremely determined government, I was delighted to find that the House in fact practises what it preaches in this regard; namely, that all Lords when they get up to speak rise equal and whether they sit down equal is up to them. I have taken so very much pleasure enjoying that equality that I cannot be a party to depriving fellow Peers of it. I am not happy about that proposal.
I believe that it is also worth remembering that the power to restrict membership of the legislature is potentially a very dangerous threat to liberty. It is something that kings in time gone past have tried very hard indeed to do. The last one to try was King Charles I and the last time he tried to do it was in 1640 against Viscount Mandeville. Three days before the House met, the spiritual ancestors of Mr. Bernard Ingham were drumming out the message that Mandeville would obtain no writ. When the House met he had his writ and he was there. I do not know why it happened. I know that in the procession at the State Opening he presented the Lord Admiral with "Five pounds of Bermoody orangs".
In the 1960s the ci-devant Viscount Stansgate rashly tried to retell that story. He attempted to argue that the granting of the Writ of Summons was discretionary and that the Crown had the right to withhold it. I am delighted that he was overruled. If we reintroduce a discretion to withhold a Writ of Summons, we are threatening a vital freedom of this House. This House has always resisted attempts to tamper with its membership. Indeed, it is a matter of pride for me to know that all through the Civil War it resisted the most savage pressure from another place to deprive its Roman Catholic Members of the right to attend.
I have said that this is a genuine problem. It is an old problem. It is not the first time that Members of this House have felt aggrieved by the power of the Crown to achieve a massive attendance in this Chamber. I remember the remark which was made by Professor Haley about the exclusion debate in this House in 1680: what delighted the courtiers about Halifax's speech was not having the better of the vote—they were used to that; what was new to them was having the better of the argument. I think that some noble Lords will recognise that voice.
But where there is an old problem there is also an old remedy. My advice to the noble Lord, Lord
742
Stoddart of Swindon, is traditional advice: he should get himself and his honourable and right honourable friends into a position from which they can advise Her Majesty on the exercise of her prerogative. I choose my words carefully here. It is an area in which Her Majesty normally chooses to take the advice of Her Ministers. On three occasions the Crown has decided that it needed to correct the balance of power in this House. On only one occasion has the Crown had to carry out that decision. If there is an overwhelming imbalance of forces in this House, the Crown if so advised by Ministers has the right to correct it. That is the target at which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, should be aiming.
Meanwhile, I believe that the rights of Members of this House should only be taken away if considered as part of a general parliamentary reform Bill which should apply to both Chambers of Parliament. I cannot support any reform of Parliament that is confined to one House. The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, said just now—I believe it was the phrase he used—"the people or at least their elected representatives". The noble Lord has to accept that those are two very different things. In all the recent areas of dispute, the overwhelming support of the people has been on the side of this House. In the matter of eye tests 87 per cent. were on the side of this House.
If we have a situation where the people are better represented in this Chamber than they are in the elected Chamber, I think that we have a case not for a procedural reform but for a great reform Bill.
8.8 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I very much enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and agreed with his logic to a great extent. Unfortunately democracy is not logical. In a general election the village simpleton casts his vote, as does a great captain of industry who employs 10,000 people and brings great wealth into the country. The captain of industry and the village simpleton have the same power to choose their final arbiter—if that is the right word to use. That is not logical.
As I said, I enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, which I think was a very good one, but with due respect to him I must say that with whatever logic one may argue one is beaten in the end because democracy is not subject to logic. True enough, the ancient Greeks who started the system were renowned for logic but of course their system is not possible here today because they had a parliament of the elite. The people in it were great scholars and had great experience. However, I shall not go into that.
With the Chief Whip sitting on the Bench below me I have to be very tactful. I agree that i1 is annoying for the Opposition if we have an overflow of Peers on a great occasion—although I would riot call the £10 charge for spectacles a great occasion. However, they are not all Conservative voters or supporters. Members on the Cross-Benches do not necessarily vote Labour; in fact very few of them do so, and one has to include them in the number. One cannot therefore always blame the Tory voters for a defeat.

743
I wrote a book on this subject some time ago. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was kind enough to write the introduction. In it I set out various schemes. However, it sold out very quickly and has not been reprinted.
The noble Lord on the Cross-Benches made a very good speech. He pointed out that it would be terrible to destroy the tremendous expertise in the House. Some people say, "They can come and speak, but not vote". But I do not think that that would be satisfactory to many of them.
I have been attending the House since 1956. I have one criticism, although it may not be a good one. When I first came to the House, if one were a BackBencher and read a speech one was called to order. With due respect, I find today that many BackBenchers now read speeches. We do not wish to become like America—I am sure that most noble Lords have been to America. You will know that in the House of Representatives and the Senate one can have one's speech typed out by somebody—one has not even written it—and one hands it in to the equivalent of Hansard and it is printed as if one has been present. One does not even have to attend the Chamber.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, what has this to do with the subject?
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, it has a great deal to do with it.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, may we have the benefit of that exchange?
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I wish to say that if one messes about with this House too much one will destroy a House of great value. I understand that my noble friend Lord Carrington has written a book in which he suggests that this House should be an elected body. If that were so, one would have only a mirror of the Commons. I can see very little point in that.
I shall cease now. However, I agree with the logic of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. It is good. But I do not see how he can put it into practice because democracy is so illogical.
8.14 p.m.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, I should like to ask the Government one question. Was it an honour to the House when the police at Peers Entrance had to challenge a number of Members on a day not so long ago, and when some of those Members had to ask where the cloakrooms were? I met a friend of mine; I was delighted to see him. He is a Member of this House but I see him only on rare occasions because he comes only when he receives a certain communication from the Chief Whip.
I should like to ask whether it is right that some of those Peers should be able to go into the Division Lobby and carry the vote for the Government. Does this not provide ammunition for those who would like to abolish this House? I would be very sorry indeed to see that. If the people of this country see that when it comes to the crunch on an important
744
matter the Conservatives will always win, this will only strengthen the argument for abolition. If this House is to retain its credibility—as I very much hope that it will—it must surely occasionally be able to defeat the Government on an important point.
However, on the matter of bringing the House into disrepute, could this not be avoided without any change in the rules if the Whips of all parties were to exercise self-restraint—
Lord Elwyn-Jones: There is not a hope of that.
Viscount Ingleby:—and not to send three-line Whips to those who do not attend this House? If this agreement could be reached and honoured—I hear some doubts expressed on the other side—would this not be a much better way of achieving the aims which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and many others would like to see?
8.16 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, perhaps I may first thank the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for putting down this Unstarred Question. He admitted when he opened his remarks that he had put it down in a feeling of anger and I think that feeling of anger and concern was very widespread after the vast votes which we had earlier in the year, in particular on the poll tax. The question of the reputation of the House is a matter of concern to all noble Lords. I think that the reputation of the House suffered as a result of these particular occasions.
The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, said that he too was concerned about the reputation of the House. I therefore hope that he will join with me on that point. I have been a Member of this House for 12 years, since 1979. The noble Lord who is to reply to the debate this evening, the Government Chief Whip, has of course been Chief Whip since 1979. During the time he has been Chief Whip I would say that the reputation of the House has been enhanced. The House has enjoyed more public esteem. This may in part have been because of the televising of the House. It may in part have been the fact that this House showed that it could on occasion defeat the Government. However, this enhanced reputation has suffered on every occasion when he has decided to over-exert himself and bring in vast numbers of backwoodsmen.
It so happens that I received a copy of a letter written to the Government Chief Whip today which was sent by a citizen of Nottingham and I think it puts this very well. He says:
"For many years I have been a staunch supporter of the House of Lords in the belief that it was a moderating chamber for the discussion and revising of the Government of the Day's more sensitive proposals for legislation.
I have to say that my belief in the impartiality of the House of Lords has been shattered by the tactics employed by you as the Government Chief Whip when there is a strong possibility of defeat for the said Government on an unpopular or major issue.
By this I mean your inviting to the House a large number of peers, who do not normally attend the Lords, to cast their votes to crush any rebellion. This has taken place at least three times in the last couple of years.
I sincerely believe that these tactics are destroying the credibility of the House of Lords … I propose in future to vote for any candidate whose policy includes the abolition of the House of Lords".

745
In fact the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip is not achieving what he hoped to achieve by these tactics with this citizen. It looks from the tone of his letter as though he previously voted Conservative.
It is interesting to note that among the many statistics available to Chief Whips we have a list of the Divisions in the House of Lords of over 300 votes between 1831 and the present day. During that period there have been 44 such Divisions. During the period before the noble Lord became Chief Whip there were 20 such Divisions over a period of 140 years, so roughly we had one really big vote once every seven years on matters such as the Common Market Motion on the Government of Ireland Bill, the Prayer Book Motion and other such matters. Since the noble Lord has been Chief Whip these really big votes have taken place three or four times a year. We have had vast and heavy turnouts—I am talking now only of votes over 300, but the higher votes too are very much included in these figures—only since the noble Lord has become Chief Whip. Obviously there is some connection between the two matters.
But the noble Lord should not be all that worried and think that he has so many detractors because he knows that last week the Observer newspaper named him as the Peer's Peer. Earlier on 23rd November the Spectator nominated the noble Lord as the Whip of the Year. I should like to congratulate him on that. Indeed he is the first noble Lord to have been given a Spectator award. The citation says:
"Lacking the disciplinary sanctions of House of Commons he has to use the more aristocratic arts of charm and gentle persuasion to coax scores of dozing Lord Emsworths from their country seats. In this he has succeeded, and without any sacrifice of the good humour of the Upper House".
Those of us who attended the occasion when those awards were presented by the noble Lord, Lord Whitelaw, were most amused to hear him say that he remembered the occasions when the noble Lord the Chief Whip would come to him and say, "I think it is about time that we had a government defeat".
The question we have to ask ourselves is whether the turning on of the screws so frequently is an abuse of the anomalies with which this House lives. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that the reputation of the House has suffered as a result. We have a working House, the composition of which was laid down by the Procedure Committee Report, in which the noble Lord the Leader of the House partook last year, which defined a working Peer as one who had attended one-third of the meetings of the House. There is a feeling that when we are taking many of the decisions and votes it is mainly the people who have been involved who should be participating in the votes. To bring in many additional Peers on certain occasions does not help the working of the House.
As has already been said, no Peer can be deprived of his right to vote without legislation. I have a feeling that that would be difficult to achieve, but restraint would be easier to achieve. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—if he were present in his place, he would no doubt be bouncing up and down on this Question as well—are always keen on
746
the problem of composition and whether the Labour Party wants to abolish the House of Lords. The truth is that the abolition of the House of Lords has been in and out of the Labour Party manifesto all this century. It was not in last time, but it was in the time before. What can be clearly stated is that the Labour Party is against a second Chamber composed as this Chamber is at present. For there to be any change in the nature of the second Chamber is a matter which would have to have all-party agreement and nothing would be likely to proceed in that area without such agreement.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am grateful to the Opposition Chief Whip for giving way and I shall be very brief. No, the policy of the Labour Party is abolition, not reform. Those are the words used in its manifestos.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: No, the noble Lord is not right, my Lords. It is abolition in its present form, which means reform. The House of Lords is, as has been said on many occasions this evening, a revising Chamber. We respect the will of the elected House. We do not seek to challenge it at Second Reading—a dictum which was laid down in this House many years ago. We retain the right to put proposals to the other place for amending legislation. It is our considered view when we put those proposls as to what should be done.
I see no reason for the Government to be unduly upset if we do this from time to time against their wishes. We know that the Government Chief Whip feels that it is healthy for the House of Lords to do that from time to time, but obviously not too often. We would hope—indeed I go further—we feel that when the House's views are expressed after considered debate by noble Lords they should command a fair wind when they go down to the other House. A fair proportion of those views should be accepted. Unless that situation persists and unless our proposals are given a fair wind when they go to the other place, noble Lords will feel that they are wasting their time—that is, if no amendments that we propose to a Bill are accepted down the other end. That would not be healthy for Parliament.
My noble friend Lord Stoddart is seeking a solution to a problem which has concerned many of us. Many noble Lords have raised points of detail concerning his ideas. I do not believe that it is appropriate to discuss points of detail this evening because if it were decided to proceed any further on the principle, those are matters which would be discussed at a later stage. I know that my noble friend has no right of reply, but the 1968 White Paper suggested a 33 per cent. threshold, but there is nothing sacrosanct in that figure. Interestingly enough it is the same figure as the Committee on Procedure used to define who was or who was not a working Peer.
There is another interesting aspect which occurred before my time, but not perhaps before the time of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, or the Leader. Originally when attendance allowances were introduced into this House this was an assiduity rule, which meant that no Peer could claim attendance allowance unless

747
he had attended on a certain number of occasions—
Lord Denham: A travel allowance, my Lords.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: Travel expenses—unless he had attended on a certain number of occasions. This was found to be quite unworkable at the end of the day because it cut out some of the people whom the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, had in mind. It is possible that when one considered those proposals again such problems would arise. My noble friend has put his Question today. It merits consideration and we await with interest what the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip has to say.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, the answer to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, is no. In the first place the noble Lord's suggestion is impractical, as he told the House most fairly when he introduced the Question.
Under the terms of the Letters Patent granting a Peerage your Lordships are entitled to a "seat, place and voice"—and "voice" means a vote in this context—in all Parliaments, as well as
"all the rights, privileges, pre-eminences, immunities and advantages",
heretofore used and enjoyed or, at present, used and enjoyed. Furthermore, since the early 17th century it has been held that the issue of a writ of summons to Parliament—so that these rights can be exercised—
"to treat and give your counsel"
is inherent in the Peerage and cannot be denied to your Lordships.
Your Lordships' House would not therefore be competent, merely through amendment of standing orders, to impose any curtailment of these rights. It would entail primary legislation, a Bill to reform your Lordships' House in fact, and I doubt whether any administration in the near future would be likely to grasp that particular thistle again.
In the second place it is undesirable—not least in that it would not achieve what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, would like it to do. I have done a little research into the voting figures in the Division on the amendment of my noble friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne to the Health and Medicines Bill—which I think lay behind the noble Lord's Question. If all Peers who attended less than 10 times during the 1986–87 Session, the last Session for which figures are available, had been eliminated from the voting on that occasion, Her Majesty's Government would still have won the Division. I have all confidence that the same situation would have applied to the previous Division to which the noble Lord objected and which prompted his Question.
But the result of such a proposal would indeed be unfortunate. It would have the effect of keeping away those Peers who live or work away from Westminster, sometimes in remote areas, who add so much to this House by bringing to it an up-to-date working knowledge of their occupations or the parts
748
of the country from which they come. That would have included my noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle.
It would also cut out four out of the seven right reverend Prelates who voted on that occasion. Had the criterion been only a slightly higher number of attendances, all seven would have fallen. The loss of the Bench of Bishops would deprive the House of wise advice and spiritual guidance, to say nothing of individual personal friendships, but I really could not see it affecting the voting figures in the government Division Lobby to a significant extent. It would totally exclude new Peers who had not had time to build up an attendance record at all.
Several noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, have suggested that if you deprive a Peer of his vote you need not necessarily deprive him of his right to make a speech. I do not believe that that would work because it is totally illogical. A noble Lord has only one vote but by making a speech he can influence any number of peers. On occasions my noble friends sitting behind me have spoken against a government Bill and then said that they will not vote against it. My invariable reply is that I would much rather they voted against the Bill because they have only one vote, but if they speak against it they can influence any number of Peers.
I have been at some pains in the past to disperse the myth of "the built-in Conservative majority" in your Lordships' House. But as it has been raised again today, I should like to do so once more. Her Majesty's Government do not have an overall majority in your Lordships' House—whether we consider total party membership or what has been described as "the working House". At my last count, this morning, there were 426 peers in receipt of the Conservative Whip as against a total of 456 who either belong to other parties or who take no Whip at all. On those figures the Conservative vote is 48.3 per cent.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords—
Lord Denham: I did not interrupt the noble Lord and I hope that he will not interrupt me.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, the noble Lord knows that if he makes such a remark I must interrupt him as always. He is counting all the Independent Peers as being against him, and that is patently not so.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it is a question of having an overall majority. Many of the Independent Peers vote against the Government and on occasions every one of them does so. They have every right so to do, but the Conservative figures are as I have given them. It would be impertinent of me, and although I would not use the same word as the noble Lord opposite, it would be unwise of him, to suggest that any Independent Peer will vote in any particular way at any particular time. As your Lordships are aware, these paper figures tend to be pure science fiction because that number of Peers never attends, or a large proportion do not. However you calculate what constitutes "the working House", the results are much the same. For example, if you take those Peers

749
who attended one-third of the sittings or more in 1985–86, the position of the Government is even weaker. There were 168 on the Conservative Benches as against 212 elsewhere. That brings down the figure to 44·2 per cent.
There is another myth current about your Lordships' House which maintains that the Conservative Chief Whip has an inexhaustible supply of backwoodsmen at his disposal who have never attended before but whom he can summon at will. Sometimes I wish that it were so, but perhaps I can have a go at that one too. The truth is that while some of your Lordships are able to attend regularly, there are others whose business commitments and geogaphical locations prevent them from coming here more often than once a fortnight, once a month or even a very few times a year. It is only when I send out a very strong Whip, which is usually once or at most twice a year, that a large number of them are inclined to come on the same day and so be particularly noticed. It has always been my belief that some of these rare attenders, and they exist in other parties too as well as on the Cross Benches, are present on almost every sitting day, whipped or unwhipped, but nobody notices them then.
In order to find out whether that was the case, I carried out another exercise taking Tuesday of last week as a sample, the final day of the debate on the humble Address. There was no Division expected and therefore no Whip in force. But there were present in the House on that day 41 Peers who attended less than one-third of the sittings in 1986–87, 13 more who attended less than 10 and four more who attended no sittings at all. I have not counted some 15 Peers present who had not taken their seats since the 1986–87 figures were compiled.
Attendance is a difficult issue. During the course of the debate several noble Lords have asked exactly what "attendance" means. If a Peer attends for nine consecutive sitting days and sits for half an hour per day—in other words, during Question Time—and then leaves, has he done his duty better than a Peer who attends for one day and sits through a nine-hour debate? Which is the better attendance? On the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, I have no doubt that the 30 minute-a-day Peer would get away with it whereas the nine-hour debate Peer would not.
I have not gone into various problems of detail—many of them mechanical difficulties which the noble Lord has not really faced up to. Would there be an appeals procedure, for instance? How would the threshold of attendance be established? Would it try to ensure that the Government never win a vote? I cannot think that the noble Lord's party would approve of that. Or would it try instead to mirror the voting pattern of another place? I do not think it would care very much for that either, remembering that my right honourable and honourable friends have an overall majority of 102.
But I really cannot help wondering whether the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, has not missed the point of what this House is all about .Your Lordships' House is not in the business of setting itself up as a rival to another place over matters of
750
major party political principle, strangely though noble Lords opposite now seem to wish that it were. It is a revising Chamber and for this it is uniquely fitted for the very reasons that the noble Lord complains about. It is indeed the disparity of numbers between the parties that makes playing the party political game to a certain extent irrelevant and enables the House to look at minor but nonetheless important points of legislation from a non-party or cross-party standpoint. And it is, as l have said, the rare attenders themselves who can provide professional expertise on every subject that is discussed. A Conservative Government is defeated between 15 and 20 times each parliamentary Session but very many times that number of amendments are won by argument on the Floor of the House.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, suggested—I agree with him on this—it is good that if your Lordships on a revising point ask another place to sit again, they should accept those amendments as often as possible. I believe that to be the value of your Lordships' House. It is not, if I may say so, the business of this House to amend Clause 1 of a government Bill so drastically that further discussion would become impossible. That would have been the effect if the Committee stage amendment to the Local Government Bill, which sought to delete the flat-rate community charge, had been agreed to, and would have wrecked the Bill quite as effectively as if we had rejected it at Second Reading. I must tell the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, that on such a Division I should not have wished to win by a single vote less than I did.
Nor is it the business of your Lordships' House to insist on Lords amendments over matters that are properly subject to Commons financial privilege, as by a procedural quirk it became possible to do over sight testing charges on the Health and Medicines Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, may shake his head as much as he likes. That was a matter of Commons privilege, and if my honourable and right honourable friends in another place had not honoured a concession which they had promised, the second amendment would have come back to your Lordships with the privilege reason given and your Lordships would not have voted against it. It is slightly anomalous that where a concession has been given this House has the ability to vote again, but where no concession is given the House has to accept it.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting because I know that the Chief Whip does not like it. I have followed his speech with almost complete sympathy. However, the fact is that at the time it came back to us it was new matter and therefore, by all logic, precedent and practice we had the right to discuss it and vote on it.
Lord Denham: My Lords, we had a de facto right to discuss it, which is why the vote was able to take place. However, that was a matter of Commons privilege and there is no shadow of doubt that had that concession not been allowed another place would have rejected the Lords amendment and would have given the privilege reason. The Speaker in another place told the House that it was a matter of

751
privilege. I am convinced that it was in the best interest of this House that in the event your Lordships decided to do neither of these things as regards the vote on the community charge or eyesight testing.
This House has every right, and indeed a duty, when it thinks fit to ask another place to think again. But what some of your Lordships may not realise is that if another place rejects a Lords amendment outright, your Lordships then insist on it and another place insists on its original disagreement, that is the end of the matter and the Bill falls. Another place can offer an amendment in lieu, which in practical terms means giving a concession of some sort, but it does not have the option of asking your Lordships to think yet again.
Your Lordships' House has gone to this length three times in the not too distant past, twice at the instigation of my noble friends when we were in Opposition and once at that of noble Lords opposite during the 1983–87 Parliament; and no doubt there will be times in the future that it will be right to do so again.
Just how often and in what circumstances this House should challenge another place is a matter for the nicest and most carefully balanced political judgment by the business managers of Her Majesty's Opposition. Perhaps I could be of help in this to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, and his noble friends, because I have distant memories of the time when we were in Opposition and this problem was very much in the minds of my noble friends and myself. I do not think that they could go far wrong if before taking such a decision they were to ask themselves the following question: "Is this the sort of action that we ourselves would tolerate the unelected Chamber taking when we are in government and, if not, can it be right for us, in Opposition, to ask your Lordships' House to take it now?"

London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]
Read a first time, passed through all remaining stages pro forma, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at a quarter before nine o'clock.

  FIREARMS LEGISLATION: PUBLICATION
  FIREARMS LEGISLATION: PUBLICATION
  SECURITY SERVICES: ALLEGATION
  SECURITY SERVICES: ALLEGATION
  HEVENINGHAM HALL
  HEVENINGHAM HALL
  TENANTS' CHOICE: CONSULTATIONS
  TENANTS' CHOICE: CONSULTATIONS
  HOUSING INVESTMENT PROGRAMME: ALLOCATIONS:
  HOUSING INVESTMENT PROGRAMME: ALLOCATIONS:
  TRIDENT WEAPON SYSTEM: POSSIBLE COST SAVINGS
  TRIDENT WEAPON SYSTEM: POSSIBLE COST SAVINGS
  BRUNDTLAND REPORT: CORRECTION TO UK RESPONSE
  BRUNDTLAND REPORT: CORRECTION TO UK RESPONSE
  MINISTERIAL SALARIES
  MINISTERIAL SALARIES