Sitting of 12 December 1988

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

    Electricity Privatisation
    Mr. Speller: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will ensure that Her Majesty's Government take on no liability for the cost of decommissioning any nuclear power stations built after the electricity generating industry has been privatised.
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): After privatisation, electricity customers will continue to pay, as they do now, the anticipated costs of decommissioning. The electricity industry already makes full provision for these costs and will continue to do so over the lifetimes of future stations. But the Government are taking powers in the Electricity Bill to enable them to contribute, subject to parliamentary scrutiny, to unanticipated increases in the costs arising from changes in public policy.
    Mr. Speller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that once an industry is privatised it is the duty of the private owner to take all risks and not to pass them to anyone else? I do not question for a second the need for payment for existing plants that Governments of all complexions have put up in the past, but how does my right hon. Friend cover the case after privatisation of people being told by the private owner that Government will carry the cost of insurance?
    Mr. Parkinson: As I pointed out, it will be for the industry to make provision for anticipated costs. However, if the nuclear installations inspectorate suddenly decided that, instead of allowing the decommissioning of power stations to take place over X years, they should take place in half X years, that could give rise to costs. That is an example of a change in public policy that the company would not have been able to anticipate. In those circumstances, and only in those circumstances, it would be reasonable for the taxpayer to contribute.
    Mr. Lofthouse: Is the Secretary of State aware that Mr. Christopher Harding, chairman of British Nuclear Fuels, recently told a Select Committee that BNF was contractually committed to the CEGB to the tune of £1,400 million to take nuclear waste at its disposal plant? Will that cost fall on the private sector, or will it be met by the Government?
    Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman makes a mistake which seems to be entrenched in the thinking of
    628
    Opposition Front Bench spokesmen. Nuclear costs are being incurred now. Last year, £700 million was set aside in the accounts of the CEGB to meet the cost of future decommissioning and waste processing. A huge provision —to date, £3·5 billion—has been set aside, and that is built into the prices that customers are presently paying.
    Dr. Michael Clark: In the forthcoming Bill, will my right hon. Friend consider quite precisely what the limits of expenditure may be for the private sector when it inherits the nuclear power stations so that investors will know precisely their liabilities and the best possible price can be obtained for Big G and Little G?
    Mr. Parkinson: We are saying that all anticipated costs will have to be met—as they are now and as they have been for the last 30 years, although that seems to take the Opposition by surprise—by the customer. Those costs will continue to be paid. We are proposing to expose those costs and to say that if there is to be an increase in payment or a grant as a result of a change in public policy, we shall come to the House and explain it. For the first time, the House will know about nuclear costs and can have justified to it any costs incurred by the Government in making these grants.
    Mr. Blair: Is the Minister not aware that the costs anticipated by the Central Elecriticity Generating Board are generally thought to be incredibly low? Is it not the case that his Bill will provide for grants or loans up to £2·5 billion per time? Why should the private sector take the profit while the public sector retains the risk?
    Mr. Parkinson: I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman was being misquoted in the press, but clearly he is totally misinformed. What exists at the moment is a liability to meet decommissioning costs. At present that is paid by the customer, but it is totally underwritten by the Government. We are saying that in future a third party will be available to share part of that risk. That party is the shareholder. The more risk that we leave with the Government, the higher the price that the industry will obtain. From what the hon. Gentleman says, one would think that it is the City which receives the price and the taxpayer who pays it. It is the other way round. If he got that into his head, he might start to understand these matters.
    Mr. Stern: On a directly related subject, does my right hon. Friend agree that it will fall to the privatised industry to bear the costs—however great they may be, at any time in the future—of the poisons that have been poured into the atmosphere by fossil-fuelled power generation for an untold number of years?
    Mr. Parkinson: Yes. We hear a great deal about this. If I catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I shall take part in the later debate. In that debate we shall talk about the costs of alternative sources of energy, which are substantial. Each year, as taxpayers and customers, we are spending an amount equal almost to the total amount of grants for which the Electricity Bill will provide.

    Coal Industry
    Mr. Eadie: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with the chairman of British Coal about future contraction of manpower in the coal industry.
    Mr. Parkinson: I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all matters affecting the industry.
    Mr. Eadie: The Secretary of State must be aware that productivity in the coal industry has increased by 75 per cent., that operating costs have decreased by 30 per cent. and that in the first quarter of this year British Coal made an operating profit of £190 million. Why must there be pit closures and redundancies for miners as a consequence of these figures?
    Mr. Parkinson: I confirm that the improvements in productivity and so on are as the hon. Gentleman has set out, and I compliment those who work in the industry on them. Moreover, that operating profit is made up substantially from surface mining, and large losses are still being made by some deep-mine pits. Until those losses can be eliminated, there will, I am afraid, continue to be pit closures.
    Mr. Thurnham: Would not the prospects for employment in the industry be much improved if there were an acceptance of six-day working? Is this not the way forward for the industry?
    Mr. Parkinson: If we can add modern working practices to the £6 billion worth of investment the Government have made in equipment in the industry in the past 10 years, the prospects of the industry will be brighter.
    Mr. Skinner: The Secretary of State made it clear earlier that billions of pounds of taxpayers' money is to be used to bail out the nuclear power industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) and I are asking why it is, if the Secretary of State can find the money to bolster nuclear power in the way that he has just announced, that he cannot do the same to stop contraction in the pits. There is 300 years-worth of coal beneath the ground and the Secretary of State should be maximising production of coal, using more manpower than is employed in the coal-fields with the result that we are less dependent on nuclear power which, in the Secretary of State's own words, is costing the taxpayer a fortune.
    Mr. Parkinson: Nuclear power is being paid for entirely by the customers of the electricity supply industry. We are talking about the possibility of grants if there is a change in public policy. As the hon. Gentleman pressed the point, I can tell him that there is a precedent for subsidising losses in an industry—the coal industry, which we have subsidised to the tune of £1 billion per year for every year since we have been in power. What is more, the CEGB estimates that is is paying about £500 million more than it needs to pay for its coal. The answer to the hon. Gentleman is that there is a subsidy, it is being paid for by the taxpayer and the customer, it amounts to £1·5 billion and it is being paid to the coal industry.
    Mr. Barron: In the matters that he discusses with the chairman of British Coal, has the Secretary of State discussed whether there are likely to be compulsory redundancies in the next round of redundancies to be
    630
    announced next August? Can the Minister give us an assurance that compulsory redundancies will not be within any agreement?
    Mr. Parkinson: The question of compulsory redundancies has never been raised with me and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will confirm that under this Government redundancies have been paid on a far more generous scale to those in the industry than ever before. We have no reason to wish to depart from that.

    British Coal
    Mr. Patchett: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Cummings: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next intends to meet the chairman of British Coal; and what he proposes to discuss.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what was discussed.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): As my right hon. Friend has just said, he and I have regular meetings with the chairman of British Coal to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.
    Mr. Patchett: Did the Minister discuss with the chairman the future funding of the pressurised fluidised bed project in Grimethorpe in my constituncy? If private funds are not forthcoming, will the Government make money available to enable the project to be completed and made commercially viable, or is the Minister happy to throw away Britain's lead in this technology?
    Mr. Spicer: As the hon. Gentleman will probably know, the chairman has written recently to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State suggesting a new hybrid technology called the topping cycle. We shall be discussing this matter with British Coal. We shall want to assess with British Coal the level and nature of possible industrial interest in the proposal.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: When my hon. Friend next meets the chairman, will he ask him to consider making suitable premises available in Wales for the Union of Democratic Mineworkers to recruit new members? My hon. Friend will be aware of the hostility of Welsh local authorities to the union's decision to expand into Wales, they apparently not believing in democracy.
    Mr. Spicer: I and the House have noted what my hon. Friend has said. It is for the chairman to decide whether that action would be appropriate. There would have to be discussions with the union.
    Mr. Hardy: Has the Minister discussed with the chairman the position of former miners who accepted redundancy on conditions that now seem to be rather less than well founded? Is he aware that some of my constituents accepted redundancy on the assumption and the advice that they were entering into early retirement, asumption and advice that now appear to justify their sense of betrayal?
    Mr. Spicer: The arrangements were made purely voluntarily. The redundancy arrangements have been more than generous in the past and were welcomed by most of those concerned at the time.
    Mr. Raffan: When my hon. Friend next meets the chairman, will he impress upon him the need to keep individual Members fully informed about the British Coal Opencast Executive's plans for individual constituencies? Will he impress upon the chairman that there is widespread concern on both sides of the House about the working methods of the executive and the need for the chairman to keep the executive on a shorter leash than he does now?
    Mr. Spicer: I shall pass on what my hon. Friend has said about opencast coaling. All sides of the industry and local authorities are pleased with the new guidelines that have been issued by the Department of the Environment to ensure that everyone knows where he stands in terms of planning applications for opencast coaling. I think that those planning applications will prove fruitful in the end.
    Mr. Douglas: Has the Minister had an opportunity to discuss with the chairman his recent visit to the Longannet complex and the precarious nature of the complex given the impending privatisation of the South of Scotland Electricity Board? Will he comment on the contractual relationship between the SSEB and British Coal, and the need to ensure that coal from the deep mines in the Longannet complex is burnt in the attendant power stations?
    Mr. Spicer: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that my visit to the Longannet complex was impressive—[Interruption.] I mean that I was impressed. I said to the representatives of the complex that if the present rates of increased productivity continue and if thereby it is possible to produce coal at a competitive price the complex will stand in a good position. Under privatisation, and with our plans to expand the interconnector between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, the coal can produce electricity which can be sold freely into the British system. We are offering every opportunity so long as Longannet continues to improve its competitiveness.

    Offshore Oil and Gas (Safety)
    Mr. Doran: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent consideration he has given to the improvement of safety in the offshore oil and gas industry.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent consideration he has given to improvements in safety in the offshore oil and gas industry.
    The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Peter Morrison): Safety standards remain under continuous review.
    Mr. Doran: Some months ago the Secretary of State announced his intention to introduce statutory safety committees and safety representatives for the North sea and as the Minister will know that announcement was warmly welcomed by Opposition Members. Since then, however, we have heard nothing. Will he give us some idea when the regulations will be introduced?
    Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. The consultation document will, I hope, be available in about the middle of January. The period of consultation will then last for six weeks, and I hope that the necessary regulations will be introduced as soon as possible thereafter.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: The Minister will know that the Select Committee on Employment recently received evidence from the Health and Safety Commission on its responsibility for health and safety offshore. It confirmed to us in a note that it had subcontracted that responsibility to the Minister's Department. Given the record of accidents in the North sea, does the Minister honestly think that one arm of Government is getting value for money from his Department?
    Mr. Morrison: I am aware that the Select Committee looked at the matter carefully. I read the evidence from beginning to end, and was aware of some of the points being made.
    As the hon. Gentleman will know, during the public inquiry Lord Cullen has a remit to look into the matter very carefully. The present safety regime is operated according to the majority report of the Burgoyne committee set up by the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn).
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Has the Minister's Department made any assessment of the costs involved in enhancing safety regulations on the North sea, and will he give a commitment that all costs will be met?
    Mr. Morrison: None of the specific costs are available to me at present, but no cost is too high for proper safety.

    Gas Industry
    Mr. Rost: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Gas to discuss the recent Monopolies and Mergers Report on the gas industry.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: My right hon. Friend met the chairman of British Gas three weeks ago, and the MMC report was among the topics discussed.
    Mr. Rost: In view of the MMC's devastatingly critical report on British Gas's discriminatory pricing in the industrial market, which has confirmed all the criticisms made by industry over a long period, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the director-general of Ofgas will in future be given powers to monitor and control the industrial as well as the domestic market?
    Mr. Morrison: As my hon. Friend knows, the director-general of Ofgas is currently discussing with British Gas the recommendations in the MMC report and how they can best be put into practice. He will have power, with British Gas, to come forward with amendments to the authorisation. In the event of their not being able to agree, it will be for my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to come forward with his new regulations.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Minister accept that the reference of British Gas and industrial prices to the MMC was forecast by many of us who were involved in the passage of the privatisation legislation? We warned that

    633
    this would happen. Does the Minister now accept that those in industry, particularly high energy users, are very disillusioned about the effects of privatisation? Having been ripped off by British Gas for four years, they are extremely concerned that they will be ripped off by the electricity industry as well.
    Mr. Morrison: I think that the hon. Gentleman will remember that at the time of the passage of the Bill privatising British Gas it was consistently made clear that British Gas would be subject to the normal laws relating to competition, and the right process was put into practice —namely, that the Gas Comnsumers Council could make a recommendation to the director-general of Fair Trading. That is precisely what has happened in the event. As the hon. Gentleman knows and my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost), has said, the recommendations from the MMC have been brought forward to make British Gas more competitive. That seems the right way to proceed.

    Electricity Council
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next intends to meet the chairman of the Electricity Council; and what matters he proposes to discuss.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of the Electricity Council regularly to discuss a range of issues.
    Mr. Flynn: The next time the Minister meets the chairman, will he take the opportunity to discuss the vast potential for tidal power which, if linked with pump storage hydro-electric schemes, could produce a fifth of our national electricity requirements in a way that is entirely demand-responsive and would contribute to base load electricity? Why do we not pay more attention to tidal power? It does not pollute, produce radioactivity or add to our burden of carbon dioxide; it is free, it has enormous power, it is British and it is eternal.
    Mr. Spicer: The figure is even greater than the one that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The Mersey and Severn barrage proposals could produce 6·5 per cent. We are taking a great and close interest in this. The Government have sponsored a good deal of research, particularly environmental research, on the basis of which decisions will be taken in the new year. We shall have those research studies before us then and we shall be able to form a view about the environmental aspects because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there are environmental questions. Thereafter, it will be a matter of whether the industry decides to go ahead. It will do so on the basis of the non-fossil fuel obligation, which applies as much to renewables, particularly tidal power, as to nuclear power —a point often forgotten by the Opposition.
    Dr. Glyn: Is my hon. Friend aware of the severe power cuts in Windsor—which lasted, with short intervals, for two days—and of the fire? When he has consultations with the chairman, will he please ask for a proper explanation of why the cuts occurred for so long and how such cuts can be prevented in the future?
    Mr. Spicer: I shall certainly pass on what my hon. Friend has said and I shall try to obtain an answer as soon as possible.
    Mr. Michael: Does the Minister accept that people will be concerned at the idea that the mere free flow of market forces will determine whether tidal power comes into being? Will the Minister give us an idea of his best estimate of the first date on which the Severn barrage, for example, could be producing electricity into the grid system?
    Mr. Spicer: As I said in the last part of my answer to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), tidal power will come under the same arrangements under the non-fossil fuel obligation as nuclear power. That is often conveniently forgotten by the Opposition. It will, have an advantage to that extent, because it will be able to compete within that obligation against nuclear power and other forms of renewables.

    Nuclear Safety
    Mr. Hannam: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many fatalities there have been among employees in the nuclear power generating industry in the United Kingdom over the last 10 years; and what are the figures for other forms of energy production.
    Mr. Parkinson: I understand that in the 10 years to end March 1988 there were five fatalities among employees in the nuclear power generation industry. None involved radiation. There were 57 other fatalities in the rest of the electricity production and distribution industry, 79 on offshore oil and gas installations and 366 in the coal mining industry.
    Mr. Hannam: I thank my right hon. Friend for that interesting reply. Does it not confirm that nuclear power is not only the safest in terms of environmental protection, but offers the greatest degree of safety for employees in the industry? Is it not advisable that all those who have reservations about nuclear power should study that reply carefully?
    Mr. Parkinson: Yes, I think that the energy debate has been carried out on a simplistic basis before. If the true costs in terms of lives lost, danger, pollution and damage to the atmosphere are brought into account, the arguments start to be much closer and far less easy to decide about than the Opposition seem prepared to admit.
    Ms. Short: I am sure that the Secretary of State does not wish to mislead anyone. A number of recent studies have shown serious estimates of fatalities among the population living near nuclear power stations. Will the Secretary of State give us those figures because they must also be taken into account in estimating the danger of the nuclear industry?
    Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Lady is wrong. There is a phenomenon called the leukaemia cluster and there are leukaemia clusters near nuclear power stations. However, there are also leukaemia clusters in New Zealand, where there is no nuclear power of any kind. The phenomenon is not understood and we are investigating it carefully because we want to understand it. I hope that the hon. Lady will start to understand it before she begins to talk in future.
    Mr. Stern: Does my right hon. Friend agree that for local authorities to divert funds is just as good a way of producing fatalities as any other, particularly when those funds are diverted from, for example, social services? Would my right hon. Friend care to estimate the cost in terms of human illness and loss of life of funds being diverted by west country local authorities such as Somerset to put up meaningless opposition to the proposed Hinkley B reactor?
    Mr. Parkinson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the way in which he worked that question into this one. There are better ways of using local authority funds than opposing Hinkley Point C but it is the purpose of local authorities to decide what is in the interests of their taxpayers, and they seem to agree with me.

    Electricity (Privatisation)
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are his proposals for price controls after the privatisation of the electricity industry.
    Mr. Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are his latest proposals for price control on the privatised electricity industry.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: Prices charged for supply will be regulated by an RPI - X + Y formula. Separate controls will apply to charges by the national grid company and by the supply companies for use of their transmission and distribution systems.
    Mrs. Fyfe: When the Under-Secretary spoke in Miami earlier this year he was anxious to reassure American capital that the industry would be lightly regulated. Does he stand by that statement? Is he really more anxious to please American capital than the British domestic and industrial electricity user?
    Mr. Spicer: The measure of regulation will depend on the degree of competition that we can introduce into the industry. At the generating end of the industry, which represents 70 per cent. of costs, there will be a lot of competition and, therefore, light regulation.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Answer the question.
    Mr. Spicer: If the hon. Lady will listen, I shall answer her. At the distribution end of the industry, where there is not so much scope for competition, there will be heavier regulation, aimed at ensuring that the consumer benefits all round.
    Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister agree that the 15 per cent. increase in electricity prices, which was double what the electricity industry wanted, will have the most disastrous effect on electricity-intensive industries, including the British Steel Corporation in south Wales? What guarantee does he propose to give the House that the burden on industy of increased prices will not be worsened by privatisation?
    Mr. Spicer: Under privatisation, there will be pressure on costs and therefore price rises will be considerably smaller than they would be in the state-controlled industry. During the past five years of Conservative Government, prices for the domestic consumer have decreased by 10 per cent. in real terms, whereas during the last five years of the Labour Government they increased by
    636
    30 per cent. The hon. Gentleman will know, too, that as a result, British electricity prices now fall within the middle range of European prices. I hope that that answers his question.
    Mr. Morgan: When the formula RPI-X+Y formula is applied, will the baseline used be that requested by the electricity industry, which asked for price increases half as great as those imposed by the Government last April and next April or will it be the much higher baseline that the Government have decided to put to the industry as a form of hypothermia tax? Will Ministers realise that the example set by the Government last April and this April is the one that the industry will expect to follow and do they not now agree that the 15 per cent. price rise is an absolute disaster for the electricity industry and, above all, its consumers?
    Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman does not realise, but will no doubt discover, that the Government do not lay down prices. We set financial targets for the industry. In a monopoly controlled industry those targets are often interpreted in terms of costs being passed straight through into prices, rather than there being any actual effect on costs. Under privatisation, great pressure will be placed on costs. Therefore, Opposition Members' fears will prove unfounded as they are based on the premise that costs must always be passed straight through, into prices which we do not believe.

    Nuclear Waste
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the latest estimate of the cost to the electricity supply industry of disposing of nuclear waste to the year 2000.
    Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much nuclear waste disposal will cost after the privatisation of electricity; and who will pay for it.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: Provisions by the electricity supply industry in England and Wales for dealing with nuclear waste total over £3 billion. After privatisation as now, these costs will be charged to customers in their electricity prices.
    Mr. Kirkwood: What evidence does the Minister have that the £3 billion that he has just announced will be enough? Is he aware that there is widespread worry, in the industry and outside it, that that figure will not come anywhere near to meeting the task of effecting safe disposal?
    Mr. Spicer: Had the hon. Gentleman been here earlier, he would have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say that the provisions are made on an audited basis by experts in the industry. We have every confidence in the provisions that have been made for decommissioning.
    Mr. Madden: Does the Minister recollect ever receiving letters from the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) or from any other Members of Parliament asking that nuclear waste be dumped in their constituencies or that nuclear power stations be built there?
    Mr. Spicer: Clearly, no right hon. or hon. Member would particularly wish to write asking that nuclear waste be deposited in his constituency. That is why Nirex has

    637
    undertaken a nationwide survey and why we, and Nirex in particular, have not agreed to exempt any area. That would be invidious. The answer is that we shall find suitable storage for nuclear waste.

    Elderly People (Heating)
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met representatives of charities involved in caring for the elderly to discuss what action his Department can take to relieve the heating problems of the elderly; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: My Department and I are in regular contact with charities concerned with heating for the elderly. Specifically, the Energy Efficiency Office provides financial assistance to Neighbourhood Energy Action and Energy Action Scotland.
    Mr. Hughes: With winter death rates for the elderly increasing over summer rates in England and Wales by 31 per cent.; in Scotland by 32 per cent; and in Northern Ireland by 33 per cent., compared with increases in Scandinavia of only 9, 11 and at most 13 per cent., is it not time that the Government took action to alleviate the hypothermia death rate among the elderly? Is not the easiest and most effective way the abolition of gas and electricity standing charges?
    Mr. Morrison: The direct answer is no. In many cases that would mean increased costs for the very people about whom the hon. Gentleman and I are concerned. He will be aware that significantly increased budgets have been given to community insulation projects and the housing insulation scheme.
    Mr. Kennedy: Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), is there not a complete contradiction running through Government policy? The Department of Health encourages old people in particular to take advantage of helplines and other facilities that it is promoting, whereas the Department of Social Security has cut back on housing benefits and on essentials such as heating, so that elderly people, many of whom have never been in debt before, are cutting back on essentials, including heating, rather than go into debt to their local authorities. Therefore, the Department of Energy is caught between a deeply unfair and regressive Government policy that is hurting the elderly. Will the right hon. Gentleman's Department make efforts to show the light to other Government Departments that are doing so much damage?
    Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the codes of practice and of the provision made for pensioners, whereby their supplies will not be cut off between the months of October and March. That is a constructive way forward.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the experiment in which pensioners were invited to pay a lower standing charge if they were small consumers has been withdrawn? Is he aware also that standing charges now account for a month's basic pension? Will he consider again whether something can be done about the level of standing charges for pensioners?
    Mr. Morrison: As I have told the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), the question
    638
    of standing charges has been looked at for some years, and it has been the considered view that a reduction would not in practice benefit the very people about whom my hon. Friend and Opposition Members are concerned.

    Electricity Privatisation
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received regarding the protection of consumer interest arising from proposals to privatise the electricity industry.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: I continue to receive a number of representations on this topic. The Electricity Consumers Council has welcomed the proposals in the Electricity Bill for protecting consumers' interests.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister recognise that there is genuine concern among many other organisations representing consumers, and among consumers themselves, in that experience has shown that it is the consumer who has been taken for a ride as a result of privatisation? Will the Minister give an assurance that, if the Electricity Bill must be forced through, every possible step will be taken to ensure the best possible protection for the consumer?
    Mr. Spicer: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. The essence of the Bill is the benefit that it will bring to consumers. At present, one monopoly producer largely determines the cost of electricity. In future, it will be subject to the force of competition, not to mention the multitude of consumer rights that, for the first time, will be brought in by the Bill.
    Mr. Dykes: In addition to electricity supply, the consumer will purchase goods—especially white goods—from the showrooms of area boards. Therefore, will the Minister meticulously examine the need to ensure that the consumer is protected from the dangers of hidden subsidies, interest-free credit and all the other devices that may obtain now, but may not later when the monopoly effect increases?
    Mr. Spicer: The retail end of the business will be transparently accountable and kept separate from the rest of the business.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    "A Hero from Zero"
    Mr. Rooker: To ask the Attorney-General if he will meet the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss what resources he plans to allocate to examining the book, "A Hero From Zero" sent to right hon. and hon. Members by Lonrho plc, for possible breaches of the law.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): Both the Director of Public Prosecutions, with whom the Law Officers have discussed this matter, and the director of the Serious Fraud Office have received copies of the inspectors' report on the takeover of the House of Fraser Group and of this book. Each is receiving appropriate consideration.
    Mr. Rooker: I thank the Solicitor-General for that learned reply. Has it not yet dawned on the Law Officers that there is a prima facie case for believing that, in 1985,

    639
    Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry allowed a known crook to buy the House of Fraser simply because he had sat at the Prime Minister's dinner table? If the A1 Fayeds are telling the truth, there has been a tax fraud on a massive scale. Will the DTI inspector's report that was referred to last Friday by Lord Young be published? He said that the report would not be published because it was in the public interest not to do so. That will not wash. The Law Officers must take a grip on the matter and operate as Law Officers rather than simply Ministers appointed by the Prime Minister.
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman should realise that the prosecution service is independent. Those matters are being considered by the director of the Serious Fraud Office and the Director of Public Prosecutions. They will reach their independent and impartial decision. The publication of the report is a matter for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Brazier: To ask the Attorney-General what steps the Lord Chancellor is taking to monitor decisions on the granting of legal aid by the Law Society.
    The Solicitor-General: Individual decisions on legal aid in civil cases are a matter for the local legal aid committees. The Law Society reports annually to the Lord Chancellor. It provides details of the number of applications granted and refused and whether the reasons for those refusals are on legal or financial grounds.
    Mr. Brazier: I welcome the changes planned for next April in the administration of legal aid, but they should go further. Is the Minister aware of two cases in my constituency? In one, a woman suffering from heart trouble was refused legal aid on the ground that her husband had not committed violence against her "for several weeks". In the other, legal aid was granted to a man who a few months earlier put in a substantial planning application and said that he could finance it without borrowing.
    The Solicitor-General: It is important to remember that these decisions are taken by independent authorities. There would be a right of appeal from local legal aid committees to the area committee. The Legal Aid Board, when it takes over the functions of the Law Society, will examine the working of the entire system.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Minister arrange for a new legal aid fund to be established in Bradford to help the many ratepayers of that city who wish to take legal action against the injustices heaped upon them by the new Conservative administration? Will the Minister explain how, when there is a High Court action in London on Wednesday and Thursday of this week involving the sale of old people's homes which we have been prevented from discussing on the ground that it is sub judice, Bradford council can debate these matters tomorrow and propose to sell homes and adjust the sale price on the life expectancy of the old people living in them?
    The Solicitor-General: Even in Bradford, those are matters for the independent decision of the legal aid
    640
    committee, with the usual appeal process. I am sure that Bradford would not wish, any more than any other area, to interfere with the operation of the courts.
    Mr. Bowis: Will my hon. and learned Friend monitor the cost of legal aid? Is it not true that too often clients who win their cases do not actually receive compensation or damages because the whole of the award has been soaked up by legal costs?
    The Solicitor-General: I am sure that that is one of the matters that the Legal Aid Board will be studying when it takes over from the Law Society.

    Director of Public Prosecutions
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions; and what matters were discussed.
    The Solicitor-General: On Tuesday 6 December 1988. We discussed matters of departmental interest.
    Mr. Janner: Did the hon. and learned Gentleman discuss with the Director the possible impact of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and whether prosecution could now be taken against those who put into the mail such grossly offensive literature as "Holocaust News" and other racist and anti-semitic documents? Is not that Act wide enough for the Government to take action against those whom they have wanted to prosecute previously, but who have walked away freely from the net of the law?
    The Solicitor-General: The matter of "Holocaust News" has been carefully considered by the Director and the Law Officers, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows. The Malicious Communications Act 1988 does not appear to have any application to that case.
    Mr. Favell: When my hon. and learned Friend last met the Director of Public Prosecutions did he discuss with him the remand prisoner problem described in a consensus report by the Law Society and other interested parties as "tottering daily on the edge of a crisis"?
    Is he satisfied with the speed with which the Director is bringing prisoners to trial? Do the Director, the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General have any objection to private remand centres as a means to ease the problem?
    The Solicitor-General: I shall answer that part of the question that is relevant to my Department's responsibility. By and large, I am satisfied with the speed with which the Crown Prosecution Service is bringing suspects to trial. It must be remembered that part of its remit is to review each case to determine whether it is proper to bring the case to trial. That takes slightly longer than was previously the case, for very proper reasons. Other than that point, the others raised by my hon. Friend fall within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Skinner: Has the Solicitor-General discussed with the Director of Public Prosecutions the case of Roberto Fiore, whose extradition has been sought by Italy since 1981 because of his link to the fascist group that was held responsible for the Bologna railway station bomb that killed 85 people?
    Why are the Home Office, the Solicitor-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions dragging their feet on that

    641
    extradition while the Prime Minister and other Ministers are getting stuck into the Belgian and Irish authorities because of Patrick Ryan? This case has been going on for more than seven years.
    The Solicitor-General: I have no reason to think that there is any foot-dragging, but extradition is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

    Beligian Attorney-General
    Mr. Adley: To ask the Attorney-General if he will seek a meeting with his Belgian counterpart to discuss co-operation on matters of common concern.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): No, Sir. The fullest co-operation was accorded to the Belgian prosecuting authorities by the Crown prosecution service in the Heysel stadium extradition case and the Belgian prosecuting authorities reciprocated in the recent case of Ryan. I grateful for that. An extradition treaty has been in existence for nearly 90 years. Its provisions have hitherto worked well. As to recent events, I think that the Government's views are now generally well known.
    Mr. Adley: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Does he think that some advantage would be gained by the closest possible co-operation between the EEC states on extradition procedures? Does he think that one of the co-ordinating activities on which all 12 member states might agree would be to seek a system whereby politicians do not have the power, and thus the temptation, to overrule decisions taken by courts in their countries?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend's suggestion will be carefully noted. It is legitimate to observe that whatever procedures and machinery are put in place, there will always remain the necessity for the will to operate them.
    Mr. Fraser: Will the Attorney-General seek an explanation from his Belgian counterpart on what seems to be a bizarre decision by the Belgian Cabinet to overrule its courts on the extradition of Mr. Ryan? We have enjoyed cordial and co-operative relations with Belgium. The effect of the Belgian Government's decision was to place the Irish Attorney-General in the invidious position of being asked to process in his sovereign state an extradition that had immediately beforehand been rejected by another sovereign state.
    The Attorney-General: The Belgian Government are in no doubt about the great surprise that their decision occasioned to the British Government, for precisely the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has put forward—the legal grounds that were put forward as the basis of the Belgian Government's decision evidently escaped the attention of the Belgian courts, which were satisfied.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Immunisation
    Mr. Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a
    642
    statement on progress on the UNICEF global immunisation programme and the United Kingdom contribution to it.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Chris Patten): There has been no significant change in the figures I gave my hon. Friend on 24 October, when UNICEF had committed about $302 million to immunisation projects, some 71 per cent. of its estimated requirement. Programmes continue to develop, but the initial spurt in activity has eased off as campaigns are completed and continuing immunisation activities are incorporated in new country programmes.
    Mr. Chapman: I commend UNICEF's ambitious initiative in making it possible for all children of the world to be immunised against six preventable diseases. I also commend my hon. Friend for making available a record £7·5 million to UNICEF's general resources fund, in addition to the £6 million contribution to the special fund, most of which will go to the immunisation programme. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if money is still needed, the Government will continue to set a fine example which will be admired by every hon. Member and the public in one of the most worthy objectives of all time?
    Mr. Patten: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interest in this subject. Our total contributions to UNICEF have doubled from about £7·5 million in the 1985–86 financial year to over £15 million in the last financial year. We will continue to give UNICEF's work the priority that it deserves. Through our general health programmes, we will also continue to try to focus as much as possible on the development of primary health care facilities in developing countries.

    Sub-Saharan Africa
    Ms. Armstrong: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which country in membership of the development assistance committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has decreased its net official development assistance (disbursements) to sub-Saharan Africa in 1986 prices and exchange rates between 1980 and 1987 by the highest percentage; and by what percentage.
    Mr. Chris Patten: New Zealand, by 73 per cent.
    Ms. Armstrong: Will the Minister comment on the British contribution? Will he confirm that because our contribution has gone down in percentage terms, sub-Saharan Africa lost about £600 million in that period? Will he assure the House that there is a commitment to enable sub-Saharan Africa to get out of its continuing problems? It now has a debt repayment problem and a loss of income, which means that it is getting into further problems. This country, with its economic growth that the Minister keeps telling us about, is in an ideal position to help sub-Saharan Africa.
    Mr. Patten: I have the passing impression that I did not give the hon. Lady the answer that she was expecting. In our bilateral and multilateral programmes, we contributed £530 million to sub-Saharan Africa in 1987. We have taken the lead in trying to cope with the African debt problem. I am sure that the hon. Lady will have been delighted also by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's

    643
    announcement last week that we will be prepared to contribute up to $100 million to Nigeria to help the programme that it is agreeing with the IMF, provided other donors also give support.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Has my hon. Friend noted the comments of the development assistance committee in praising the British programme for its concentration on the poorest countries, not least in sub-Saharan Africa?
    Mr. Patten: Yes, we concentrate more aid on poor countries than do many other donors. The average for OECD donor countries as a whole is about 60 per cent. to poor countries whereas our figure is about 80 per cent. That is wholly right. It is also why we attempt to convince our colleagues in the European Community to adopt poverty criteria rather than political criteria for allocations under the Asia-Latin America programme.
    Miss Lestor: As I have written to the Minister, he is no doubt aware that in its report, which he must have seen, the development assistance committee has expressed its concern at the decline in our aid
    "in real terms during much of the 1980s and that as a proportion of GNP it was now considerably below DAC average."
    The OECD also states:
    "that the time has come to reverse the downward trend in the United Kingdom's ODA/GNP ratio, also as a contribution to improved aid burden-sharing among DAC members, and to make sustained progress towards
    the United Nations target. Does the Minister agree with those views? Can he give an assurance that this year the trend will be reversed?
    Mr. Patten: I agree with what the development assistance committee of the OECD said in its statement about the effectiveness of our aid programme, about the extent to which it takes account of environmental factors and about the extent to which it is directed towards the alleviation of poverty. I also welcome what the development assistance committee said about our aid programme now growing in real terms—a reflection of the growing strength of our economy, to which the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mrs. Armstrong) paid such glittering and fulsome tribute earlier. I am delighted that our aid programme will be growing by 18 per cent. in cash terms over the next three years or 5 per cent. in real terms.
    Ms. Short: That is less than inflation.
    Mr. Patten: I said 5 per cent. in real terms. Perhaps the hon. Lady could take a course in basic economics. I am delighted that we should be able to add to that with the new money that would go to Nigeria, provided that the other conditions which I mentioned earlier are met.

    Rain Forests
    Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what programmes to safeguard the rain forests his Department is supporting; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Chris Patten: Details of our existing activities to protect rain forests are given in a supplement to "British Overseas Development", a copy of which I am placing in the Library. In future we will encourage recipient countries
    644
    to direct more of our aid to forestry and will increase commitments through international research and British charities.
    Mr. Jack: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer and his commitment to the rain forests. My nine-year-old son, Edmund, many members of the public and ecological bodies are worried that we are losing the race against time in the destruction of the rain forests. What hope can my hon. Friend give that a sense of new urgency will be promoted by the British Government in pursuit of further initiatives to ensure that his ecological legacy remains at the disposal of the whole world?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend's nine-year-old son is as worried about the subject as is my nine-year-old daughter, Alice, and they are both entirely right to be worried about this issue, to which my hon. Friend has paid such attention during his time in the House. We are funding well over 70 bilateral research and non-governmental organisation projects in the forestry sector. We have committed about £80 million to projects which are currently under way. I believe that we should do more and I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has committed us to that in her speeches to the Conservative party conference and the Royal Society. I look forward to some of the results of that in the years ahead. As my hon. Friend said, this is an extremely important subject.
    Mr. Fearn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to initiate discussion with any developing countries to offer increased aid in return for guarantees about the protection of areas of tropical rain forest.
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to initiate discussions with developing countries to offer increased aid in return for the implementation of measures to protect areas of tropical rain forest.
    Mr. Chris Patten: I shall be encouraging recipient countries to direct more of our aid to forestry, but I support the view of the Brundtland commission that aid should not be subject to blanket environmental conditionality. Instead we should help countries to improve their capacity to tackle environmental problems and encourage international agencies to take full account of environmental aspects when preparing loans.
    Mr. Fearn: What have the Government's representatives in the United Nations been doing about rain forests in general?
    Mr. Patten: Our ambassador to the United Nations in New York, who was formerly the permanent secretary in my Department, is one of the foremost environmentalists in this country. Like our other representatives abroad, for example, at the World Bank, he has been pressing that the environmental impact of development should be taken into account.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister acknowledge that experts say that at the present state of erosion tropical rain forests will disappear by 2020 if some urgent action is not taken immediately? Is he aware that the only way to do that effectively is to make sure that the people who are getting a commercial return from taking out the rain

    645
    forests are accommodated and subsidised through the aid packages that we offer abroad? Is the Minister's Department considering that?
    Mr. Patten: That is one of the approaches being considered under the tropical forestry action plan. However, the problem is more complicated than that, which is why we have put so much money into, for
    646
    example, inventories and management of the rain forests of western Africa. It is why, as I said earlier, we have committed £80 million to forestry projects that are at present under way and, above all, it is why we shall commit more resources to trying to develop appropriate institutions in developing countries so that they have capacity in environmental matters, which they do not have at present.

Railway Accident (Clapham Junction)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): At about 8.15 this morning a serious train accident occurred some 300 yards west of Clapham junction station when the 06.14 Poole-Waterloo passenger train ran into the rear of the 07.18 Basingstoke-Waterloo train. An empty train from Waterloo then ran into the wreckage. At least 30 persons are known to be dead and it is feared that the number will be higher; there are 113 injured, 31 very seriously.
I am sure that the House will join with me in expressing our deep sympathy with the families and relatives of the dead and with those who have been injured. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
British Rail has already started its investigations into the accident and will immediately take any steps that may be required.
Both my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have visited the site this morning, accompanied by the deputy chief inspecting officer of railways. Another inspecting officer from the railway inspectorate was already on the scene. I intend to appoint an inspector to conduct a full independent inquiry into the accident, in public, under the provisions of the Regulation of Railways Act 1871. A further announcement will be made as soon as possible about the timing of the inquiry. It is, of course, too soon to know the cause of the accident.
The line is unlikely to be cleared for at least 24 hours. British Rail has announced some alternative arrangements for passengers returning home tonight. An emergency telephone number for casualty inquiries has also been announced.
The emergency services responded to the disaster magnificently and I pay tribute to their dedicated work in rescuing the survivors and dealing with this appalling tragedy.
Mr. John Prescott: On behalf of the Opposition, I begin by offering our deepest sympathies to the relatives and friends of all those who were killed or injured in today's terrible tragedy. The work of the emergency services in responding so swiftly and with such skill and courage in the most difficult circumstances will no doubt have saved lives. Once again this House and the whole nation will admire their sheer professionalism and dedication.
I should like to add a personal note of thanks to the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for the way in which they have kept me informed, despite the many calls on their time, since news of the terrible disaster unfolded.
This terrible tragedy—the worst rail disaster for many years—comes only a matter of weeks after the publication of the Fennell report into the King's Cross fire in which 31 people lost their lives and follows the Manchester air disaster and the P and O ferry tragedy, all of which have naturally heightened public concern about passenger safety.
May I assure the Secretary of State that we welcome the fact that, just as I called for in relation to the Piper Alpha tragedy, there will be a twin-track approach to investigating this terrible tragedy, thus ensuring that under the agency agreement with the Health and Safety Executive there is an immediate inquiry into the specific
648
technical reasons for the accident and that any immediate lessons can be acted on straight away, as well as the fact that there will be a fuller, independent public inquiry?
However, I am concerned about the nature and terms of reference of the public inquiry. Is the Secretary of State aware that the latest report of his chief railway inspector reveals that deaths and major injuries on British Rail have increased by 62 per cent. over five years, collisions by 18 per cent., and derailments by 6 per cent.? In those circumstances, will the Secretary of State consider a public inquiry that is independent of the Department of Transport?
Will he ensure that the terms of reference of such an inquiry are wider than those for the Fennell report and that the inquiry will be able to investigate all aspects of passenger safety on British Rail? Could the inquiry investigate the effects that financial considerations have had on passenger safety on British Rail and the fears for safety that have arisen from increased congestion? Will the inquiry consider, too, whether it is time to transfer the responsibility for health and safety on our railways from the Department of Transport to the independent Health and Safety Executive?
This is the second tragic accident involving major loss of life that has hit London's passenger transport system in little more than a year. There is a growing crisis of confidence in safety, among both the hundreds and thousands who commute each day into London and passengers throughout the country. Will the Secretary of State ensure that he acts swiftly to resolve the crisis of confidence and also to reverse his earlier judgment not to provide immediate Government time to debate the King's Cross report?
I assure the Secretary of State that he will have our full co-operation in helping to maintain the traditional reputation of British Rail as one of the safest railway operators in the world.
Mr. Channon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for a great deal of what he has said in his supplementary questions. I am grateful, too, for what he said about me, and especially for what he said about the emergency services, which on this occasion, as so often, did an outstanding job. Indeed, I believe that the fire brigade arrived on the scene within five minutes or less of this appalling disaster. It certainly deserves the thanks of the House.
Naturally, I have not had time to consider in detail the terms of reference of the inquiry, but I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.
I have noted what the hon. Gentleman said about financial considerations. We must see what the inquiry reports, but the House will be well aware of the large investment being made at present in British Rail.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about British Rail's general safety record. However, I must tell him that, in general, the rate of significant accidents per train mile has been steadily reducing for 20 years. Of course, as the House knows well, the level of safety of trains is very much higher than that of road vehicles. However, I shall consider the serious points that the hon. Gentleman has made.
Sir David Price: As one of those many hon. Members whose constituents were on the train involved, may I add to those already offered by my right hon.

649
Friend, and my hon. Friends' sympathy to the families? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the proper and necessary public inquiry will have wide enough terms of reference to embrace the total operations of Clapham junction? I believe that the House knows that that railway station probably has more trains passing through it than any other in the world and hence has more complex control systems than any other station. That should be a major factor for the consideration of the inquiry.
Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I shall consider carefully what he has said about the terms of reference, and I shall hope to arrive at terms of reference that will be acceptable to all sides of the House.
Mr. Robert Adley: In joining my colleagues from other Dorset and Hampshire constituencies in thanking the emergency services in London for what they have done, I ask my right hon. Friend two questions. Will he ask British Rail to investigate the effect of such a high-velocity crash on passengers in very crowded trains of open-plan stock compared with what might have happened in the more old-fashioned corridor stock? Will my right hon. Friend ask British Rail to supply immediately a list of how many signal and track improvement schemes are presently delayed pending the availability of funds under the public service obligation grant?
Mr. Channon: What my hon. Friend has raised in his supplementary questions are clearly matters that must be investigated, and I shall ensure that they are.
Mr. Andrew Hunter: My right hon. Friend will know that many of my constituents were involved in this morning's tragedy. On behalf of the people of Basingstoke, will he convey their profound gratitude to the emergency services for their compassion and dedication when they responded so promptly to the emergency?
Will my right hon. Friend take note that, whereas today the dominant emotions are grief, sorrow and distress, some of today's anguish may become tomorrow's anger? Will he ensure that answers to the questions "Why did this happen?" and "What can be done to ensure that it never happens again?" are relentlessly pursued?
Mr. Channon: Yes, Sir. I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend says, and that is what I shall do.
Mr. Tom Cox: May I, as the Member who represents Wandsworth, fully support the statement that the Secretary of State has made, especially with regard to the tragic loss of life and the appalling suffering that the injured will face for many months?
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) asked about the terms of reference of the inquiry. When those terms of reference are decided upon, will the right hon. Gentleman please take note of the repeated questions that London Members have put to him and to his predecessors about the services coming into London and the gross overcrowding?
Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House and those people who have been sadly bereaved or seriously injured that the Government will do everything they can to
650
be as generous as possible to those people? I make that point because, sadly, we have heard many times in this House of the Government's concern, only to read, a few weeks later, of the restrictions and the problems that people have experienced. Can we be assured that that will not happen in this case?
Mr. Channon: I entirely endorse what the hon. Gentleman said in the first part of his question, and I am grateful to him.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that present investment in British Rail, both in cash and in real terms, is now running at, probably, its highest ever level and is certainly much higher than it has been for 20 years in real terms. I am sure that he will welcome the amount of investment that is taking place, but all such matters must be considered carefully.
Mr. John Butterfill: I know that my constituents of Poole and Bournemouth would wish to be associated with the thanks that has been given to members of the rescue services. When my right hon. Friend conducts the inquiry, will he expand it to include the design of the railway carriages and their ability to withstand the type of impact that they faced today? From the pictures that I have seen of today's accident, the carriages had collapsed considerably; that must have added to the loss of life.
Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and of course I shall consider the points that he makes. The particular sort of rolling stock that was involved in today's accident has been on the railways for some time. It is not a new design, nor is it the very oldest; it is the perfectly ordinary type of rolling stock that has been in operation for some years. However, I shall certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.
Dr. John Marek: Rather than bearing it in mind, will the Secretary of State, here and now, assure the House that, contrary to what happened at King's Cross inquiry, evidence will be admissible about the level of subsidy and the effects of the so-called Government efficiency savings? Will he also assure the House that the problems of overcrowding and safety, as referred to in paragraph 6 of the foreword and summary of the chief railway inspector's report, entitled "Railway Safety", will be addressed at that inquiry?
Mr. Channon: I take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am sure, as I have said a number of times this afternoon, that he will welcome the fact that a record amount of investment is presently taking place in British Rail. Investment is projected to be even higher in real terms than it is at present. All relevant matters must be considered by the inquiry because we want to get at the truth, to discover why the accident occurred and what can be done to make sure that it does not happen again.
Mr. John Ward: My right hon. Friend will expect me to associate my constituents with the remarks that he has already made. May I also thank him and my hon. Friend the Minister of State for their prompt attendance and for making the information available quickly?
It would be wrong to jump to conclusions this afternoon. The whole purpose of having the type of inquiry that my right hon. Friend has outlined is to find the

651
facts. We should wait for those facts before making a judgment. Would it be possible to increase the number of lines on the emergency number? That would be a help, because a number of people from Poole and Bournemouth have been trying to get throught, but have found the number continuously engaged.
Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree that it is wrong for us to prejudge the inquiry's outcome only a few hours after this terrible disaster. The Metropolitan police informed me that there would be extra emergency lines, and I hope that, by now, that has been achieved. I shall certainly convey my hon. Friend's suggestion to the police at the earliest moment.
Mr. James Molyneaux: On behalf of the people of Northern Ireland, may I extend our sincere sympathy to the bereaved, those who have been injured and those hon. Members representing the constituencies most affected?
Mr. Channon: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I remember his generous remarks on the occasion of the tragic King's Cross incident as well.
Mr. David Howell: I fully share the sentiments that my right hon. Friend has expressed to the House, especially as many of my constituents use that line every weekday. We send our deepest sympathy to the bereaved. Is my right hon. Friend aware that this section of line is undergoing extensive signalling modernisation and re-equipment? Will he ensure that the inquiry will focus on the transitional difficulties that result from heavy capital expenditure, because, as we know, this line is one of the most intensively used in the world?
Mr. Channon: My right hon. Friend, with his experience, has put his finger on an important point which is obviously directly relevant to the inquiry. Although it is a matter for the inquiry to decide, I am sure that it will be an important factor in its consideration.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: May I, on behalf of my hon. Friends, join the House in extending our sympathy and condolences to the bereaved, the injured and all those who have suffered from the accident. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement. Will he respond a little more to calls from the House that he consider the investment strategy of British Rail and the Government, especially corporate priorities? In view of the previous understaffing and staff vacancy problems with the railway inspectorate, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the inspectorate is up to its full staffing complement?
Mr. Channon: As I told the House on another occasion, I hope that the railway inspectorate will be up to its full complement shortly after Christmas. I have told the House a number of times about the enormous investment programme for British Rail, especially Network SouthEast. My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) drew attention to the heavy re-investment on that line. Of course, this is a matter that the House will wish to consider for itself. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks.
Mr. David Atkinson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind expressions of sympathy to the bereaved and the injured, many of whom are my constituents. Can he assure the House that the bereaved
652
families will receive support from local social services and voluntary supporting services, both now and during the forthcoming Christmas period?
Mr. Channon: I am sure that that is happening, but my hon. Friend is right to raise that matter. I shall discuss it immediately with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. I assure my hon. Friend that urgent action was taken. The injured were taken to hospital with remarkable speed, considering the extreme difficulties caused by the accident and the fact that few people could work in the site at any particular moment. In my judgment, this appalling disaster has been handled in a first-class way.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is the Minister aware that yesterday afternoon I travelled on a train past this very spot and later had conversations with railway personnel about a long-standing safety matter concerning Network SouthEast—a matter which, as far as I know, was not involved in this tragedy? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the changes in procedure in the signal department of London Underground Ltd which were introduced recently?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, whatever may be the effect of time and motion efficiency studies in retail sales, production and distribution, application of such methods to organisations such as the Civil Service, schools, hospitals, maternity services and the operation of railways, may not always be efficacious and can sometimes affect safety? Will he ask his Cabinet colleagues to reflect on this matter?
Mr. Channon: I am sure that the hon. Member would expect me to say, and it is very much the case, that safety must be the paramount consideration of any rail operator. British Rail recognises that and recognises its responsibilities and has always done so. As the hon. Gentleman said, over the years British Rail's general safety record has been very good. The hon. Gentleman raised a safety point about the London underground. That is a different matter, but if he cares to write to me about it I shall immediately take it up with the chairman of London Regional Transport.
Mr. John Bowis: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and I thank him and his hon. Friend the Minister of State for coming down to my constituency this morning to see this scene of horror and tragedy. He is right to send the sympathy of the House to those who have been bereaved and to those who have been injured. I and my constituents would like to join in that message. He is also right to praise the emergency services from our area and beyond who came to the rescue as best they could. Many of them said that today they saw sights that they had never seen before.
I hope that we can also thank the people working behind the scenes from Wandsworth council, in the Salvation Army and people in the community. The Salvation Army told me how impressed it had been by the way the boys from Emanuel school come out to give succour and refreshment to those who had been injured and to people who had been working through the day.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, although this is one of the busiest rail junctions in the country, it also has one of the safest records? That makes today's events doubly tragic for the people who use the line. I am grateful for the inquiry, and I am glad that it is to be public. I hope

653
that it will be swift and will take into account all possible causes, incuding, of course, signalling now that we have computer signals. I hope that it will also take account of speed, the frequency of trains and how closely they follow each other. It should also consider the wider issue of the overcrowding of trains. That could not have caused the accident, but it may have made it far worse.
Mr. Channon: I think that I would endorse everything that my hon. Friend says. I confirm what he says about the safety record until today. I was glad to have his commendation for the emergency services, because he was on the spot with my hon. Friend and me and was able to see at first hand some of the appalling conditions under which the emergency services had to work, and the outstanding work that is being done.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May I endorse the Minister's praise for the emergency services and also mention those in the nursing services who will be devoting care and attention to the recovery of those who are injured? I endorse the Minister's view that railways are still the safest form of travel, compared, for example, to road transport. Can he assure the House that, if there are any pointers during the inquiry about deficiencies in maintenance workers or maintenance investment in either permanent way or signalling, he will not wait for the report to be published, which will take many months, but will take immediate action to provide grant aid to British Rail to make sure that any deficiencies of that sort are remedied immediately?
Mr. Channon: If, either during the inquiry or before it, evidence comes to light that requires immediate action that is for the Government to take, I shall not hesitate to take it. If it is for British Rail, it has assured me that it will take immediate action. It has launched its own internal inquiry and will take necessary steps as quickly as possible.
Mr. Michael Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend guarantee that the inquiry that he has announced will keep its doors as wide as possible, so that anyone who wishes to give evidence either orally or in writing will be able to do so? Many of my constituents have useful anecdotal evidence about the way in which the line has been operating, particularly around Clapham junction, and like me they count themselves fortunate that they were not among those who were killed or maimed today. They feel that they have a duty to give evidence, perhaps in memory of friends, loved ones or relations who lost their lives or were injured in this tragic accident.
Mr. Channon: I shall certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend says. He makes a fair point and I shall try to see that the inquiry's terms of reference are appropriately drawn.
Mr. Harry Cohen: I extend my constituents's and my personal condolences and sympathy to the bereaved and injured. Is the Secretary of State sitting on a report which says that new lines need to be built from suburban areas into London to alleviate the overcrowding? If he is, should that report not be published right away, so that hon. Members can see it and see where the investment needs to go? The Secretary of State will recall that, in an industrial dispute when the Government beat
654
down the train drivers, they were warned about the problems of flexible rostering and were told that it could cause safety problems? Does the Minister realise that, if that is a contributory factor, the Government stand besmirched?
Mr. Channon: I do not want to prejudge the result of the inquiry, but the hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view. I do not agree with him, but let us see what happens. All relevant matters are for the inquiry to determine, and we shall see whether that had any effect on the accident. I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the central London rail study. I have not yet seen the final report on that, but the sooner that it can be published the better.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: On behalf of my constituents, many of whom were involved in this shocking accident, I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his statement, and I endorse the remarks that he made about the emergency services. May I press him on one point that has already been raised? It is that the highest priority is the best possible communication so that our constituents, many of whom have loved ones who might have been on one of the trains —although they probably were not—can be informed as quickly as possible?
Mr. Channon: Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As to communications, I said earlier that the Metropolitan police would increase the available numbers. I hope that that has been done. It may be that the numbers will have to be increased again, and we may have to use the Surrey police as well as the Metropolitan police. In view of the feeling of the House, although that is not my responsibility, I shall make sure that those views are conveyed to the Metropolitan police at once.
Mr. Tony Banks: Hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent London constituencies are proud of our emergency services, and we hope that Ministers will think on that when they come to allocate resources to those emergency services.
Is the Secretary of State aware that overcrowding is now a matter of great concern to the travelling public in London, and many observers of the transport system? Perhaps the time has now come to limit the number of people who can use British Rail and London Regional Transport trains. After all, we put limits on the number of passengers that can be carried on other forms of public transport.
If it had not been for the quick thinking of the guard on the third train, it is likely that a fourth train would have piled into the wreckage. Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an undertaking that he will tell British Rail that, at least for the moment, it should halt any further progress towards one-person-operated trains?
Mr. Channon: I agree about the emergency services. The inquiry will have to consider what the hon. Gentleman says about trains and whether the number of people getting on them should be limited. We have to establish first that the train was overcrowded. It was full, but there is some conflict of evidence about whether it was overcrowded. As we all know, one of the trains was empty —of the three, only two were carrying passengers. I make it clear to the House that I want to make sure that the inquiry covers all relevant points, so that public and

655
Parliament are reassured about the future. I do not want hide anything, and I am sure that the inquiry will not want to dodge getting to the bottom of what occurred on this occasion, so that the appropriate lessons can be learned.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that I have called all hon. Members whose constituencies are directly involved in this tragic accident. I do not think that this is the moment for wider discussion of the matter. We shall move on to the next statement.

Fisheries Council
3.58 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): Together with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and my noble Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, I represented the United Kingdom at the meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers in Brussels, on 9, 10 and 11 December.
This was a very important Council for the United Kingdom on many fronts. The Council reached agreement on a complex package of proposals on total allowable catches and quotas for 1989. As a result of our efforts, the final agreement contained improvements in the fishing opportunities originally proposed for the United Kingdom for 21 stocks. These changes are in line with the scientific advice where available, but in many cases there are increases in precautionary TACs where the scientific evidence is limited but experience in the fishery suggests that some increase is possible and desirable. In particular, we secured an increase in the Commission's proposal for the precautionary TAC for Channel cod and a United Kingdom allocation for sprat in the south North sea.
For western mackerel, I am very pleased to tell the House that we have finally secured flexibility to take mackerel east of the 4 deg W line, despite the continued strong resistance of a number of other member states. We have pressed for this for over a year in the Community, and now, in 1989, our fishermen will be able to take 35,790 tonnes to the east of the line. This has been achieved without affecting the general principles of the common fisheries policy. It will be a major help to the pelagic fleet.
I turn now to North sea cod and haddock, where the main difficulties for the coming year lie. We have had to face hard decisions for these stocks, because the spawning stock biomasses are at an unprecedentedly low level. This means that, unless firm action is taken now, we would be endangering the whole future of the fishery, as I warned the House on 1 December. Consequently, the TACs had to be set at levels which would prevent further depletion of the spawning stock. Although I recognise that this is likely to affect income, it is essential to accept these TACs in order to safeguard the long-term security of our fishermen. I welcome the comment from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation that the haddock quota was probably as much as it could have hoped for, given the decision to adhere to the scientific advice.
Given this unavoidable background, we regarded it as very important to secure as high as possible a quota allocation of North Sea haddock. After long negotiations, we secured 54,380 tonnes out of the Community's fishing opportunities of 62,500 tonnes—that is, 87 per cent. as opposed to our allocation in recent years of 78 per cent. This reflected an ultimate acceptance by the Commission, then by the Council, in the face of strong opposition from the other member states affected, that we should benefit from the Hague preference. Other member states face a cut of nearly 80 per cent. in their quotas compared with less than 60 per cent. for the United Kingdom.
In response to our strong pressures on the whole of the haddock question we secured an increase in the western haddock quota, which will add a further 1,500 tonnes for our haddock fishermen. This means that the fishing

657
opportunities for North sea and western haddock next year will in fact be 73 per cent. of our estimated catches this year. Total white fish opportunities next year for cod, haddock, whiting and saithe in the North sea and west of Scotland will be 10 per cent. below this year's estimated catches.
I also insisted that the TACs for cod and haddock in the North sea should be reviewed if the biological assessment of the Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management in May indicates that this might be appropriate. In the final stages, we secured Council and Commission agreement to this.
During the negotiations, we have again made a substantial transfer with the Netherlands, securing valuable increases in 14 quotas, including additional opportunities in the North sea, as well as several stocks of particular importance to our fishermen in the south-west.
The Council also considered a number of technical conservation measures. I welcome the introduction of a plaice box along the Danish, German, Dutch and Belgian coasts, and the continuation of the cod box in the German Bight, both of which are designed to protect juvenile fish.
We have also agreed two new measures to protect sole in the North sea. We persuaded the Commission to alter its proposals so as to have broadly the same conservation effect but to achieve it by means less damaging to our fleet. We secured the removal of the potentially disruptive mesh size increase. Regulating the size of beam trawls will ensure containment of the catch effort of this highly valued species; and we secured a six-month period of notice to allow fishermen reasonable time to re-equip. The restriction of larger beam trawl vessels above 1,800 brake horse power to an area north of 55 deg N will afford protection for the sole stock in the spawning period. We consulted the industry closely on all these issues.
This was a complex and difficult Council meeting, but in the context of the current stock situation, the United Kingdom has achieved a better deal than any other member state.
Dr. Norman A. Gorman: The Minister has just made what I would call an insufferably complacent statement. He will surely acknowledge that he offers a financially bleak prospect for Scottish and English fishermen who fish the North sea for haddock and cod. Will he accept that these fishermen face a dismal new year? Surely the same holds for many who are employed in the fish processing industry. Quota reductions must be of a manageable size in the interests of both the catching and processing sectors. We have seen in the herring ban what happens when the processing sector is ignored.
Will the Minister admit that the management of the fisheries is something of a scandal? Fishermen, even in harsh financial circumstances, accept the need to conserve threatened stocks, but does the Minister agree that effective management must extend beyond an annual block of quotas that are negotiated in mid-December? At the very least, we need increased mesh sizes and an increase in the landing size of the various species. Will the Minister agree to examine the problem of discards? The savage reduction of quotas will lead to a worsening of the discards
658
problem. I am sure that the Minister will agree with me that in this regard we lag far behind the Icelanders and Canadians.
Surely the time has come to introduce a reasonable and fair decommissioning system. Instead of a steady reduction of certain elements of the fleet, the Government have allowed an expansion to take place, with disastrous results. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will make a statement before the end of June 1989 on this mid-term review of haddock and cod quotas? That will offer a crumb of consolation to our fishermen. As for consolation prizes, I am pleased to see that agreement has finally been reached on fishing for western mackerel east of 4 deg W. Will the right hon. Gentleman review the rigour of the scientific assessments of fish stocks, which seem to be somewhat erratic?
Finally, are the Minister's officials and the European Commission considering proposals for a fisheries set-aside scheme that is analogous to the agricultural set-aside scheme?
This is surely a black day for many of our fishermen.
Mr. MacGregor: I totally reject the charge that I am complacent. It is important to have regard to the entire settlement that we have agreed and not confine ourselves to the one stock that is causing concern. It is fair to note the considerable improvement that the United Kingdom Government have secured across the board. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) for his recognition of our achievement of flexibility for the fishing of western mackerel.
I have made it clear throughout that I am well aware and deeply appreciative of the effects that the cut will have on our fishermen who catch haddock. That is why I pressed so hard for the improvements and made them my top priority in the negotiations. I think that the hon. Gentleman underestimates the impact of the changes that we have achieved. He must recognise that the scientific assessment has to be taken into account. I am sure that he agrees that we would all have been criticised, including himself, if we had ignored the scientific assessment, only to find in future years that there were no fish for our fishermen to catch. That would be to place our fishermen in the most serious state of all. That is what we had to take into account.
I am concerned about the scientific assessments. The hon. Gentleman knows that we are talking about international scientists, not Government officials. The scientists have a problem because with haddock we are talking about single-year stocks. That is where the problem arises. It is difficult to make an assessment. However, the scientists' advice that we received last year —that haddock TACs could be increased—was misconceived. It is important that we examine the way in which the advice is undertaken.
The hon. Gentleman will know that mesh sizes are being increased from 1 January. The discards problem is important. Had the United Kingdom secured pretty well the whole of the haddock TAC, five other member states would have had such tiny quotas that they would have considerably increased their discards. That would have been the likelihood. That would have offset all the conservation effects of the reduced TAC.
We were undoubtedly considering the discard question in deciding where to pitch the relative quotas, but the five other member states, which took a good deal of

659
persuading for the outcome to be reached, are left with only 25 per cent. of the quotas that they have fished this year, whereas in the case of the United Kingdom the haddock catch possibility has been held at 60 per cent. of this year's catches.
Expansion of the fleet reflects the profitability of fishing in recent years; and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we are how considering how to deal with the problem.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether a statement would be made before the end of June. I cannot say whether that is possible, as the statement would have to be made after or just before the Council meeting when we receive the scientists' assessment in the May-June review. I assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that I am very alert to the importance of the matter. That is why I pressed for a review following the assessment, and we shall be considering how to give the House an appropriate opportunity to express its view then.
The hon. Gentleman will know that what might be described as the equivalent of the set-aside scheme—laying-up premiums—were available in the United Kingdom, but the uptake was very small. We must wait and see what happens in the fishery in the coming year. There are still considerable opportunities for our fishermen. I well understand the problems, but we must look at the state of the stock.
Sir Michael Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that no fair-minded Member could ever accuse him of being insufferably complacent? No one has worked harder to look after the fishermen's interests. The problem is clearly a lack of fish.
Having said that, may I ask my right hon. Friend to realise that, along with the real hardships being endured —certainly by my fishermen—there is a worry about whether the scientists are reaching the right decisions, and whether the further decisions being made as a result are themselves right. The stocks that were estimated a few years ago, and the allowable fishing of 250,000 tonnes of cod in the North sea, have been steadily reduced year by year. The forecasting seems to be completely adrift. In the meantime I hope that, in these difficult times, every encouragement will be given to improving port and marketing facilities, so that the fish can reach the market in prime condition and fetch the best possible prices.
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right to say that the most difficult problem is a lack of fish. I only wish that I could conjure up more fish, but I cannot. I can only secure the best possible deal for our fishermen—and that is precisely what we have done. It is plain from the facts and figures emerging from the Council meeting that, without the slightest doubt, the United Kingdom haddock fishermen have obtained far the best deal. All other fishermen face a reduced quota compared with what they expected when they went into the negotiations; we have obtained an extra 8,000 tonnes for our fishermen.
We must of course take into account the best scientific assessment that we can obtain, and there is no doubt that the state of the spawning stock biomasses for North sea cod and haddock reveals a worrying picture. I agree with my hon. Friend, however, that we need on each occasion to probe the scientists' work very closely. We did so on this occasion, and we will do the same when the review comes in May or June.
Mr. James Wallace: Let me start on a positive note and welcome the decision about fishing east of 4 deg W for mackerel. Will favourable consideration be given to the designation of Lerwick as a mackerel port?
The swingeing cut in haddock quotas will dismay those who depend for their livelihood on going out to catch haddock and cod. When does the Minister or his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland propose to meet representatives of the Scottish fishing industry to discuss the financial implications of the decision, and what constructive proposals can they put forward at any such meeting? When the issue was debated in the House on 1 December, it was generally believed that the Hague preference would entitle the United Kingdom to 60,000 tonnes and that figure was not contradicted from the Government Front Bench. Can the Minister explain why there has been a shortfall of some 6,000 tonnes?
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about western mackerel. As he will know, the fishermen met my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland a few weeks ago, and are in regular touch with my noble Friend Lord Sanderson of Bowden. I am sure that meetings will be arranged to follow up the outcome of the weekend's Council decisions as soon as it is convenient. We were also in touch regularly with the Scottish fishermen who were in Brussels throughout the negotiations, and my noble Friend saw them yesterday morning. The Lerwick question is obviously a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend, but I am sure that he will have heard the point that the hon. Gentleman has made.
It is important to recognise that in the past the Hague preference has not been accepted in its entirety. In one instance, the United Kingdom raised criticisms of it in relation to a request from Ireland, and we succeeded in ensuring that it was not wholly achieved. In this case, if the preference had been accepted at 60,000 tonnes, that would have left 2,500 tonnes for five other member states. There was a risk, to which I have already referred, of high discards from those other member states, which would have affected the conservation issue.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept, however, that the United Kingdom secured a very tough deal in getting so much of the haddock quota this year, and that our cut has been very much less than those of all other member states. We secured an extra 1,600 tonnes in the western haddock fishery, which is also available to our fishermen, and which should be added to the extra North sea stocks that we obtained.
Mr. David Harris: Does my right hon. Friend accept that fishermen are realistic and know that the only fish that he and his fellow Ministers can conjure up are paper fish, through inflated TACs which bear no relation to fish in the sea? He is to be congratulated in not following that course.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the channel cod quota is one of those that will be subject to the mid-term review next year? Will he also confirm that a number of swaps have been made with other countries for other species? That will be of assistance to the south-west fishermen in particular.
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can confirm that the channel cod question will be subject to

661
review. My hon. Friend will know that we obtained an increase in the original proposals to assist our fishermen. As for quota swaps, we had one with the Dutch in which we transfered 17,000 tonnes of North sea plaice which we could not fish. In return, we obtained all the Dutch quotas for different stocks in the south-west area as well as others in the Irish sea and elsewhere, including significant quantities of sole and herring in the North Sea. Most of those are highly valued by our fishermen, and I believe that they will be of great benefit to fishermen in the south-west.
Mr. Ted Garrett: The Minister may be surprised to learn that I am a bit of an expert on the fishing industry—
Mr. Robert Hughes: As on most things.
Mr. Garrett: My hon. Friend is quite correct.
The right hon. Gentleman may also be surprised to realise that 15 years ago a Select Committee report on the fishing industry predicted precisely what is happening now. He will recall the first question about the depletion of herring stocks. Had we not pursued the policy that is now being pursued, there would be no herring stocks.
The Minister may be further surprised to learn that I am chairman of a Council of Europe committee on the fishing industry. We might learn something about the processing of fishing from the Portuguese and the Spanish, who have gone to warmer waters to find fish to process for commercial use. I refer, of course, to tuna.
The North Shields fishing port on Tyneside, which predicted exactly two weeks ago what the statement would say, may have been correct, that there are lessons to be learned. The primary lesson is that, as the Minister said at the end of his statement, if we do nothing, no fishing will be left.
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman, with his great experience, is absolutely right. I can tell him—with far less experience than he has—that I have taken on board the message that he has put to the House. He is right to draw attention to the risk of repeating the herring fiasco—the near-disaster in the 1970s—and that was very much in all our minds when we accepted the total allowable catch for North sea haddock this year.
The hon. Gentleman's warning is also very pertinent. I have reflected on the advice that we received from the scientists last year for this fishery, and I am surprised now that it was such a high figure. We should therefore be careful and cautious this year on that fishery. I recognise deeply the problems that that creates in one year, but we must also recognise that those fishermen had a 50 per cent. increase in the value of their landings in the three years to 1987, which must be taken into account as well. What they would not forgive us for would be over-fishing now and then running into precisely the problems to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention.
Mr. Anthony Steen: I first congratulate my right hon. Friend on achieving a great deal, for which the House must be grateful. I also want to thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for taking the trouble to pay a visit to Brixham fishing port and to talk to trawlermen there. They were very grateful, and they are pleased with the result that has been achieved. However, is
662
my right hon. Friend aware that the Dutch and Belgians are notorious for ignoring quotas? Not only do they not have the policing to ensure that their ships do not go over the quota, but their ships have additional concealed fish holds and blinders in their nets?
I wonder whether my right hon. Friend is aware of that. What steps will be taken to ensure that the Dutch and Belgians do not completely ignore the quota? Will action be taken to stop them taking more than they should?
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's opening remarks and, in particular, his tribute to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who has been assiduous in going round all the fishing ports since taking on his responsibilities and in pressing our case with great vigour in the Community. My hon. Friend said that other member states were not properly controlling quotas. He will know the tremendous importance that we attach to that, and the priority that we have given in many Council meetings to ensuring that we have a thoroughly effective inspectorate of inspectors, and that other member states observe the conditions.
I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise the many steps that the Dutch Government have taken recently to put their house in order, which have caused them a great deal of difficulty and controversy. I can assure my hon. Friend that we continue to discuss these matters actively with other member states. I want to stress that the Dutch Government have been very strong in trying to deal with these matters in the past few months.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Given that we must take scientific advice seriously, what explanation can the Minister give for the sudden mood of optimism last year and the catastrophic drop in forecasts this year, which has led to savage cuts in the quotas? Why did the scientists get it so wrong? Surely they should have spotted the age profile earlier. How can the matter possibly be changed in June next year? Is that offered as a sop to fishermen for keeping quiet at the moment? If the Minister introduces some form of compensation scheme, will he repeat the errors of the past and give the money only to the boat owners and not to the working fishermen, the processors and those working in fish processing, who will lose their jobs as a result of the changes?
Mr. MacGregor: On the scientific advice, the problem on stocks—particularly in the haddock stock—is that annual fisheries have become dependent on single-year classes and those fluctuate widely for many reasons. That is one reason for receiving advice from one year to another. Single-year classes are an issue that gives us cause for concern because it implies that the remedy lies in increasing the spawning stock biomass, and that is the purpose of the current low level of TACs.
The review in May is not a sop. It is important to continue to review the scientific evidence and to change the TAC in mid-year, if the scientific evidence justifies that. That is important. However, I do not want the House to be under any misapprehension: I am not putting that forward as a way out of the problem. We shall have to wait and see what the scientific evidence is in May. There is no precedent for paying compensation to fishermen when stocks decline or disappear.
Mr. Keith Mans: Although I welcome the statement, particularly with regard to the increase in

663
western mackerel, which is good news for Fleetwood in my constituency, I also want to welcome the technical and conservation measures that my right hon Friend has taken. May I urge on him the importance in future of trying to ensure that quotas are more stable, which is the best long-term means to ensure a profitable and stable industry?
Mr. MacGregor: I agree. We have been focussing this afternoon on the one quota that has given is the greatest difficulty. It is important to stress that we have stability in many other stocks, and we have seen increases in some cases.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Has the Minister made an estimate of the number of jobs at risk from the cut in the North sea haddock quota, which is the mainstay of the Scottish fleet in volume and value? Does not the Minister's acceptance of the discard argument wholly invalidate the case for setting impossibly low TACs? Does it not show that one cannot manage a fishery by quotas alone? When will the Minister take effective action against Icelandic imports, some of which are coming in below reference prices? The Minister quoted the mildly favourable reaction from fishermen, as opposed to the welter of criticism that he has received from them. Does he not accept that the view among fishermen is that a haddock deal of 54,000 tonnes should have been accompanied by the resignation of the Minister, his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and his noble Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office?
Mr. MacGregor: I have quoted the point about the reaction of fishermen to contrast that responsible attitude with the ludicrous response from the hon. Gentleman and his party this morning. The hon. Gentleman has taken the matter out of all perspective. I hope that he does not mean that he was hoping for a far bigger increase in the TAC this year. If he was asking for that, he was endangering the future of the fisheries. I suspect that that was a short-term reaction. It is easy for the hon. Gentleman, who has no responsibility for carrying out decisions—and never will have it—to call for that. Such a call would have the worst possible effect on the long-term future of the fishermen.
Mr. Toby Jessel: My right hon. Friend mentioned the interests of producers several times. Will he bear in mind equally the interests of consumers, as fish is the one form of protein that everyone agrees is thoroughly healthy? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in Twickenham this Saturday, the price of cod was three times the price of mackerel? If there is a glut of mackerel, cannot more be done to promote its consumption—perhaps by the industry itself? Is my right hon. Friend aware that more fishmongers are opening? What are the Government going to do to meet the increasing demand for fish? Perhaps there should be more fish farms and other methods.
Mr. MacGregor: We do not actually have a glut of mackerel at present, although I agree entirely with my hon. Friend about the nutritious and other values of fish as food. That is why, through the Sea Fish Industry Authority. we have been carrying out a major marketing programme to increase the consumption of fish. I am delighted that there are now more retail shops and that the supermarkets are expanding their provision of fish.
664
It is very important to ensure that stocks do not disappear altogether. We find it very difficult to re-encourage the young consumer to consume herring because, given its disappearance, she has not been used to handling it. Ensuring the future viability of stocks is an important factor in ensuring that more people have more fish to eat.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: The cut in the North sea cod quota will be a serious body blow to a Grimsby industry, which is already struggling with catch difficulties with no help from the Government. Does the Minister accept that there is a disparity of treatment between farmers who, faced with the loss of earnings through natural disasters, usually receive some compensation and fishermen, who should, in this instance, receive compensation either from the Commission, which is awash with money, or from the Government, for the consequences of these decisions?
Does the Minister accept that quotas and TACs are a partial method of sustaining conservation? Is it not better to use technical measures such as the seasonal closure of grounds, the closure of spawning grounds and, most important of all, a real and substantial increase in mesh size—properly and effectively policed—to ensure proper conservation? Would that not have been a better step to take?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman will know that farmers have been going through a very difficult period because of the impact of the weather on their harvests, which has considerably reduced many of their incomes, and there is no compensation for that.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that conservation measures represent just as important a part of the overall approach to the common fisheries policy. In particular, we have placed a heavy emphasis on the need to protect the juvenile cod—a stock that is of particular interest to the hon. Gentleman. This year, some member states attempted to remove the box in the Bight on which we have insisted, which helps to protect the juvenile cod. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be glad to observe that that has continued in place. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important continually to examine conservation measures—including mesh size—and that is what we have been doing.
Mr. George Foulkes: Those of us who represent fishing constituencies are genuinely worried about the effect of the decision. What will be done to ensure that non-Community countries do not come in and over-fish the stocks as well?
My second question follows on from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). Fishermen in my constituency believe that the reason why the Government are so generous in giving compensation to farmers—I do not quarrel with that—is that there are so many farmers on the Conservative Benches. They point out to me that there are no fishermen on the Conservative Benches—and by that I mean not rod fishermen but net fishermen. Will the Minister do something to show my constituents that their attitude is just a little cynical?
Mr. MacGregor: We pay great attention to ensuring that imports from outside the Community abide by the rules. The Community's deal with Norway this year was pretty tough—
Mr. Foulkes: Iceland?
Mr. MacGregor: We are looking at the position in regard to Iceland. We need evidence that the rules are not being observed.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the contrast with farming. I would point out to him that in recent years we have been spending considerable sums on capital grants to ease the problem of the size of the fleet. We have spent sums on general marketing and have been giving the utmost attention to ensuring that we achieve the best possible outcome from each Council negotiation to protect our fishermen.
Mr. Calum Macdonald: I apologise to the Minister for not having been here for the early part of his statement. My question relates not so much to the quotas that he has announced as to their knock-on effect upon the prawn fisheries off the west coast. Does the Minister realise that my constituents are scared that fishermen affected by the quotas may transfer their attentions to the prawn fisheries off the west coast and that, in two or three years' time, quotas such as those now being imposed on haddock will be imposed on the prawn fisheries? Will the Minister undertake to consider that question carefully; and, if he envisages such a transfer taking place, will he introduce measures to correct the position?
Mr. MacGregor: I note that the hon. Gentleman fairly referred to what might happen in two or three years' time, so let me put the question in context. It is difficult to predict the effects on fishermen's incomes of the package agreed on white fish in the North sea and the west of Scotland, as it will depend on the market. With less fish coming on to the market, prices may well rise, although one cannot predict that with certainty. In addition to overall values, it is also important to consider the totality of North sea and west of Scotland white fish quotas.
As I said, those quotas represent 90 per cent. of our estimated catches this year. That is the context in which we must set the possible implication that the hon. Gentleman fears. We also have a review coming up mid-year, and we shall watch very carefully what happens in the fishery as a whole. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that at the same time we must ensure that the long-term future of the stocks is assured.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Minister now answer three specific and important questions that he has so far avoided? First, what assessment has been made of the impact of the agreement on jobs—particularly for the Scottish fishing fleet as a result of the haddock TAC—given that many reports suggest that several thousand jobs could be affected directly or indirectly? Secondly, what action does he propose to take to try to stop imports from non-EEC countries at below reference prices, which are undercutting our fishermen? Thirdly, will the Minister come and make the statements that he has made today not in the cosy confines of an office in Scotland but at one of the ports along the north east fishing coast?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Lady is a fair person. If she examines the answers that I have given, she will find that I have clarified the position on the assessment of jobs. One simply cannot tell today what the outcome will be. We have to consider the value of the fish that are landed, and we do not know how the market will react to that. We need
666
to take into account the fact that the white fish quotas represent 90 per cent. of this year's catches and that last year the value of United Kingdom landings in haddock was nearly 50 per cent. up on 1984. We are therefore considering peak years. We must consider all those factors, and the possibility of a review mid-year. For those reasons, it is not possible for anyone to say what the outcome is likely to be.
On the hon. Lady's second point, I have already said that we are monitoring developments in relation to reference prices. On her third point, I strongly believe in getting out and about whenever I can, subject to the commitments of the diary. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary certainly travels a great deal, and I do so whenever I can.
Mr. Frank Doran: It is not only the fish catchers who are dismayed at the Minister's announcement; it is also those in the fish processing industry, a large part of which is situated in my constituency. The Minister will remember that the total ban on herring catching a few years ago lasted three or four years. By the time herring quotas were reintroduced, we had completely destroyed our capacity to exploit the stocks. What steps does the Minister propose to take to ensure that that does not happen again?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. We are taking steps to achieve a realistic TAC now, precisely to avoid what happened in relation to herring.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Minister accept it from me that the announcement on TACs will be greeted with dismay in towns such as Eyemouth in my constituency, where, only this weekend, the Allscot factory summarily laid off 57 employees, partly as a result of uncertainty about the supply of white fish? I understand that the Minister has difficulties in quantifying the value and volume changes implicit in the announcement, but will he next year consider giving special assistance both to the catching and to the processing sectors, if evidence is produced that the worst fears of some Opposition Members are confirmed? Will the Minister or one of his colleagues come to Eyemouth and explain the consequence of the announcement?
Mr. MacGregor: I shall certainly pass on the hon. Gentleman's request to my noble Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office. The hon. Gentleman referred to the processing industry. As I said in answer to an earlier question, I fully understand the impact of the lack of fish and of the uncertainty to which the hon. Gentleman fairly referred. That is precisely the problem; we cannot just create fish. We must ensure that the spawning is protected if we are to have a proper supply of fish. That is precisely why we had to act as we did over the weekend, and we shall be reviewing the position throughout the year.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider haddock in a wider context. I have already said that the white fish quotas are 90 per cent. of our estimated catch this year. Haddock quotas for the United Kingdom in the North sea and off the west coast of Scotland are 73 per cent. of our estimated catches this year. The fact that the catches this year are well below our quotas suggests that the main problem is a lack of fish.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Can the Minister tell the House whether, without the global United

667
Kingdom white fish quota, any protection will be given to vessels having a low catching power? If no such protection is provided, will there not be a danger that quotas will be gobbled up by the extremely powerful vessels that sail from some ports?
As the Minister has responsibility for food, will he deal again with the impact of this development on consumers? Can he given any estimate of the effect on shop prices that it will have?
Finally, given the clear warning that has evolved over many years that supplies of familiar species of fish are increasingly under pressure, and with the market looking to new species all the time, will the Minister give an assurance that the short-sighted nonsense of cutting fisheries research and of threatening the existence of establishments such as Torry will be abandoned once and for all? Let there be more research and recognition of future needs, not less.
Mr. MacGregor: As to the hon. Gentleman's question concerning prices to the consumer, that is not something that one can estimate now, because it will depend on the market place. On the hon. Gentleman's first point concerning quota allocation, the way in which we do that is something that we must now decide. As to research and development, the key aspect in respect of management of the stocks to ensure long-term supplies—this is the key issue for the consumer—is the research work undertaken by our fisheries people at Lowestoft—
Mr. Doran: And Aberdeen.
Mr. MacGregor: — and in Aberdeen, and elsewhere—in relation to long-term stocks management. That aspect is not affected by the research and development review we are now undertaking.

Inmos (Sale)
4.41 pm
Mr. Doug Hoyle: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the proposed sale of Inmos by Thorn-EMI to Thomson-SGS, the Franco-Italian semiconductor manufacturer."
The matter is urgent because the sale is imminent, so right hon. and hon. Members require an immediate opportunity to discuss it. It is important because Inmos, which was set up in public ownership by the last Labour Government, is the only British company that designs, develops and mass-produces microchips. It is facing a foreign takeover, purely because it was dumped by the present Government into the private sector.
A successful information technology industry is as essential to a modern industrial nation as the steel industry was to a manufacturing country in the last century. Inmos is no lame duck, but is right at the frontier of the information technology industry. Its transputer is unique, and is a world leader in microprocesors. Transputer sales are soaring, especially in Japan. Few British companies can say that of their products. More than 200 Japanese companies are incorporating transputers into the design of their new products.
It is a matter of national interest that a successful, strategically important technology company remains in British hands and does not become a foreign subsidiary that will be dependent upon the whims of a foreign owner. We cannot allow Thorn-EMI's short-term market needs to decide Inmos's long-term future. To allow Inmos to pass into foreign hands will be a body blow to the whole of Britain's information technology industry. I ask for an emergency debate in order that we may discuss that important matter in greater detail.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the proposed sale of Inmos by Thorn-EMI to Thomson-SGS, the Franco-Italian semiconductor manufacturer."
As the House knows, Standing Order No. 20 requires me to give no reasons for the rulings that I make on these matters. I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member has said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Orders of the Day

  Electricity Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  [Relevant documents: Third report of the Energy Committee of Session 1987–88 on the Structure, Regulation and Economic Consequences of Electricity Supply in the Private Sector ( House of Commons Paper 307), and the third special report of the Committee of the same Session containing the Government's observations on the third report (House of Commons Paper 701).]
  Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the reasoned amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), and that I propose limiting speeches to 10 minutes between seven and nine o'clock this evening. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members called before seven o'clock will have regard to that limit when they are making their contributions.
  4.45 pm
  The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill sets out the Government's proposals for the restructuring and privatisation of the electricity supply industry throughout Great Britain. Today sees an important turning point in the history of that important industry.
  Virtually no one now bothers to pretend that if we were starting from scratch, we would choose to recreate the public sector monoliths that dominated key areas of the national economy in the post-war period. They are the tower blocks of our economy, the monuments to the public sector planning that lost sight of the customers' needs.
  The right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) said that if his party came to power, they would try to make the market economy work better than this Government have made it work. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) showed signs of understanding the shortcomings of a monopoly supplier when he said that he wanted to change the electricity industry and make improvements. Perhaps that is the other reason why he was moved on. For the sad truth is that nationalisation has fulfilled neither the hopes nor the promises of his supporters.
  Mr. Norman Hogg: How can the right hon. Gentleman make such an assertion about the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, which provided electricity to people who would not have received a supply had the industry been left in private hands? In the context of the hydro-electric board, the right hon. Gentleman's comments are utter nonsense.
  Mr. Parkinson: That may be the hon. Gentleman's view but it is not ours, and when the hydro-electric board finds its way into the private sector he and his constituents will be very pleased.
  It was Labour's own leading post-war theorist, Tony Crosland, who first gave the game away when he likened nationalisation to
  "making Marks and Spencer as efficient as the Co-op."
  670
  Some of his contemporaries, and some right hon. and hon. Members seated on the Opposition Benches today, still believe that he was paying the Co-op a compliment.
  Those working in the electricity industry have always recognised the concept of public service that the nationalised industries were intended to embody, but for them, the practice has been very different from the theory. There has been insufficient pressure on costs, efficiency or prices. With the encouragement of past Governments, the industry has over-invested in plant that has not been needed and which, in some cases, has not worked. By restructuring the electricity supply industry and returning it to the private sector, we will improve its efficiency, promote competition and give customers a better deal.
  Our proposals will open up a genuine market in electricity. They will remove the present institutional barriers to competition and provide a new climate that fosters competition. By giving locally based supply companies a duty to provide a supply to all their customers, they will move the key decisions from a remote monopoly producer towards the customer and the supplier.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Minister specify how he detected the demand for privatisation of the Scottish electricity industry? Did he do so from election results, or by some other means that we do not know about?
  Mr. Parkinson: I know that the hon. Gentleman resents it, but we have national elections in this country. We have suffered for many years under Labour Governments elected by Scottish and Welsh majorities. He is a member of the national Parliament. The Conservative party won the election on the basis of a promise to privatise the electricity supply industry.
  Suppliers will have a direct incentive to seek the cheapest sources of supply from a wide variety of generators. Private generators will benefit from access to transmission on the same terms as everyone else. In that way we shall change the whole culture of the industry from one of cost-plus and take it or leave it, to one of consumer choice and real service to the customer. At the same time, our proposals will ensure that security of supply is maintained, by preserving the integrity of the national grid system and by encouraging diversity in electricity supply.
  One of the most surprising allegations is that I am taking excess regulatory powers over the electricity industry. The same people say that we took insufficient regulatory powers in previous privatisations. Perhaps they could make up their minds and decide what they really want. Presumably they want to promote competition. Regulation can help there—for instance, by obliging the industry to allow newcomers to use its wires. Presumably they want customers to be protected against exploitation. Presumably they want the industry to plan for emergencies and interruptions in fuel supply. Presumably they want the industries to meet specified standards of service. Presumably they want the industry to observe safety standards. Presumably they want the Scottish industry to be regulated from Scotland.
  If that is what they want, that is what the Bill gives them. If they think that is excessive regulation, perhaps they would say what clauses should be dropped. I suspect that we shall hear nothing about that.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: The drafting of the Bill recognises that competition and the interests of consumers are not necessarily synonymous. It is also clear that where they are not, competition will have priority over consumers' interests. Since the Secretary of State has so often implied that the interests of consumers must come first, is he prepared to amend the Bill and especially clause 3(3)(a)?
  Mr. Parkinson: The customer's position will be improved in two ways. First, the person who supplies the customer will have access to a market in electricity. Secondly, he will have a regulator with strong powers whose job it will be to ensure that the customer gets a fair deal. The Bill makes possible those two improvements and puts the customer in a much better position. The Electricity Consumers Council agrees wholeheartedly with that, and believes that the customer will be in a far better position under the Bill.
  Mr. Tony Blair: The other point made by the Electricity Consumers Council was that, if competition is to mean anything, it must mean choice for the consumer. Will the Secretary of State tell us precisely what choice will be available to a consumer who does not like his area board and wants to change? What choice is there at the point of consumption?
  Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman is being wholly disingenuous and he knows it. We have made it clear that the cost of duplicating the low voltage distribution system—that is what he is asking for—would not be in the customer's interests but would increase costs enormously. We are saying that, in the 80 per cent. of consumers' bills not represented by those costs, there will be competition, and in the remaining 20 per cent. there will be regulation.
  Mr. Blair: The Secretary of State has told us why it is not practically possible to provide competition for the consumer. That may be right. He claimed that he was not proposing the same for electricity as for British Telecom but was introducing something different. What choice does the consumer—not the monopoly supplier—have?
  Mr. Parkinson: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed with my speech, I shall explain to him, as I explained at the Conservative party conference, which seemed to find it easier to understand, that taking two wires to every house would be wasteful and no consumer wants it. That is precisely the point that the hon. Gentleman seems unable to comprehend. The price of what is supplied will be subject to competition. The cost of supplying it will he regulated, and that cost is a small part of the overall bill.
  The Bill provides a clear statutory framework for our proposals. The detailed regulatory arrangements for the industry will be contained in licences issued under the Bill, which we shall table when the Bill goes into Committee. The regulatory framework, like the Bill, will enable the six principles set out in the White Paper "Privatising Electricity" to become reality.
  The first principle was that decisions about the supply of electricity should be driven by the needs of customers. Our Bill will give every owner or occupier of premises—not, as now, those within 50 yards of an existing main—a right to a supply of electricity on reasonable terms. That will extend the customers' rights. Suppliers will be able to contract for electricity from a wide range of
  672
  sources with incentives to do so in the most cost-effective manner. Customers will have the right to contract directly with the generators of their choice.
  We shall oblige public electricity suppliers and the national grid company to offer fair terms for carrying the electricity generated. That will give the heavy user a more direct choice in who supplies his electricity and will give those who supply the domestic customer a choice in who supplies them—something that they do not have now. At present, we have a monopoly producer compounding a monopoly distributor. That is wrong. All those provisions will exert downward pressure on costs by enabling decisions about electricity supply to be driven by customer needs.
  The second principle was that competition was the best guarantee of customers' interests. To promote competition, the Bill will enable the industry to be restructured so that the generating capacity of the Central Electricity Generating Board can be split into two new companies: one, Power Gen, would own about 30 per cent. of the CEGB's existing generating capacity, all of it non-nuclear, and the other, National Power, would own the remainder. The national grid will be transferred to the joint ownership of the area boards' successors.
  Privatisation will open an exciting new opportunity for independent power generators. We know already of nearly 20 proposed independent power generation projects that would amount to more than 10 per cent. of our national needs. I give the House two examples. The first, and the closest to the House—just nine miles from here—is Thames Power's proposed 1,000 MW plant at Barking Reach, which will form an important part of the overall plan to revitalise that area. Secondly, in the midlands, Hawker Siddeley is planning a 350 MW station that could produce enough electricity to supply Corby, Kettering and Northampton. There are almost 20 other major projects in the pipeline.
  The third principle was that regulation should be designed to promote competition, oversee prices and protect customers' interests where natural monopolies will remain. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) seems to have discovered natural monopolies for the first time, but a great deal of the White Paper related to precisely how we should regulate them.
  The Bill enables us to appoint a Director General of Electricity Supply and to staff his office. It sets out his duties, the most important of which will be to promote competition and protect the customers' interests. It allows him to issue licences to generate, transmit and supply electricity. He will regulate the industry by granting, modifying and enforcing the licences.
  Opposition Members have the strange idea that regulation is a substitute for competition, but it will ensure that competition develops. It will do so in at least five ways. It will require the 12 public electricity suppliers to contract with the most competitive generators; it will penalise them through price control if they contract inefficiently; it will require the public electricity suppliers and the national grid company to allow others to use their network on terms that may be settled by the director; it will prevent the 12 public electricity suppliers and the two large generators from using their position in the market to stifle competition; and it will give new rights to independent generators and suppliers, so putting them on an equal footing with the successors to the CEGB and the area boards.

  673
  There will be more than just two generators. I have mentioned the independent generation projects being considered; there will also be opportunities to buy from Scotland, from France, from the established independent generators and even from the generating projects in the process of being launched by the area suppliers—[Interruption.] In theory, that could have happened after the 1983 Act. In practice, it did not, because the monopoly generator dominates the market and throws out the independent generator.
  The fourth principle was that security and safety of supplies must be maintained. The integrity of the national grid will be preserved with a merit order system building on the benefits of existing arrangements. The national grid company will have a statutory duty to develop and maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economical system of electricity transmission.
  We believe that security of supply is best based on diversity in sources of supply. We believe that nuclear power is a vital part of that diversity. On at least two occasions in the past 10 years, Britain would have faced enormous difficulties but for our nuclear power stations. The oil price explosion and the miners' strike would have caused us almost insuperable problems. The original case for nuclear power remains strong, and fossil fuels remain finite. No major new alternatives to nuclear power have yet been discovered.
  As the environmental arguments develop, nuclear power will increasingly be seen as the least polluting major source of electricity. Nobody knows what the price of fossil fuels will be in the decades ahead, but we can all be reasonably certain that they will be a great deal higher than they are now.
  To encourage diversity of supply, a statutory obligation will be placed on each public electricity supplier to purchase a minimum amount of non-fossil-fuelled generating capacity, and that includes renewables. It will ensure that any costs associated with this requirement are shared by all electricity users. That obligation will not therefore affect the overall level of prices, but it will enable customers to identify the cost of diversity.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Why will not the Secretary of State allow effective energy conservation measures to contribute towards that percentage of saving? Does he acknowledge that investing money in energy efficiency can release more units of electricity than investing in power generation? That should be taken as part of that quota.
  Mr. Parkinson: I shall deal with that point in a minute or two. I should like to deal with it within the framework of my speech: I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: Is it not true that the Secretary of State will have to rig the market on the cost of nuclear power, both for the four PWRs that are in the pipeline to be built between now and the end of the 1990s and for the decommissioning of plants? Surely market forces will not operate. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the taxpayer should have to pay for that aspect?
  Mr. Parkinson: I have already said why we need a nuclear component in our electricity supply. Security of supplies demands diversity. The hon. Gentleman is a
  674
  moderate man and he did not want Mr. Scargill to win the miners' strike any more than we did. If we had not had nuclear power in 1985, Mr. Scargill would have won—[Interruption.] Oh yes, he would. If there had been no nuclear power during the oil price explosion, the lights would have gone out. There is a strong case for diversity, which is why we are determined to ensure that that happens. As we said in our election manifesto in 1987, we believe that maintaining a strong nuclear industry is a vital part of that diversity, and that is what we shall achieve.
  Mr. George Foulkes: Answer the question.
  Mr. Parkinson: I have. The hon. Gentleman does not understand the answer, so he should go away and think about it.
  Electricity customers will continue to pay, as they do now, the anticipated costs of dealing with spent nuclear fuel and retired nuclear plant. The electricity industry already makes full provision for those costs, and the Government stand behind the CEGB and British Nuclear Fuels. That is the current position. If there are unanticipated increases in the costs—for example, through changes to safety or environmental requirements—the Bill enables the Government to contribute to them. That is right, because such costs are likely to arise from changes in public policy. Our approach will give investors and the industry a more certain future against which to plan, and it will subject costs to scrutiny by Parliament.
  From recent statements by the hon. Member for Sedgefield, one would have thought that it was entirely novel for the Government to be prepared to assist an energy industry. He has, of course, said very little about the coal tax that we have been paying for years, both as consumers and as taxpayers. The coal industry has made tremendous efforts, especially since 1985, to reduce its prices and improve its performance. Nevertheless, over the past nine years, the Government have given the coal industry more than £1 billion a year in grants and payments.
  Payments to the coal industry do not stop there. In addition, the CEGB estimates that last year it could have saved up to £550 million if its coal had been bought at competitive prices. Those figures show the real scale of the coal tax we are paying now, not the theoretical tax that the hon. Gentleman invented.
  The taxpayer has been picking up the cost of fossil-fuel-produced electricity both as a customer and as a taxpayer, making up the loss incurred because the coal is uncompetitive.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, had the CEGB sought to replace the purchase of British coal by the purchase of imports, that increased demand on the international coal trade would have had an enormous inflationary effect on prices? That is one reason why the right hon. Gentleman's Department has been supporting the coal industry.
  Mr. Parkinson: The coal industry itself recognises the validity of what I have been saying, because in recent years it had been forced to reduce its costs. The CEGB estimates put the figure much higher than the one that I used. Whichever way we look at it, a substantial premium is being paid by the electricity user to British Coal. At the other end, the taxpayer is picking up £;1 billion a year in

  675
  deficit grants and redundant mineworkers' payments scheme grants paid to the industry. Nothing that the hon. Gentleman says can change those figures.
  Mr. Blair: The right hon. Gentleman's reason for imposing a nuclear tax on the industry appears to be the fact that we are already paying a coal tax. Surely the key contradiction is why, if he believes in privatisation, the coal industry should be left to the market but the nuclear industry be given special protection.
  Mr. Parkinson: The nuclear industry will have no more protection than the coal industry already has—[Interruption.] Some 70 per cent. of all our generating capacity is coal burning—[Interruption.] Of course it is privileged; we have developed the technology to burn coal and we have insisted on burning British coal. If there is to be a privileged fuel in future, it will be—as it has been in the past—coal, which will have a five times bigger share of the market than nuclear power.
  On safety, the Electricity Supply Regulations lay down the procedures and standards that public electricity suppliers must observe on quality and safety of supply. They have been fully revised and brought up to date and will ensure that the electricity supply system will remain every bit as safe and secure after privatisation as it is now.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: Nowhere in the Bill can I see continuity of supply. If supply is cut off, a person's deep freeze or refrigerator or other appliance dependent upon electricity will not work. Is there any means by which he may be compensated for any loss he may have sustained?
  Mr. Parkinson: Under the present system, the answer is no. Under our system, if the industry fails to perform and restore power and fails to meet targets, there will be brand new rights for customers. I am about to talk about them at this very moment.
  The fifth principle was that customers should be given new rights, not just safeguards. I have already referred to the new right to require a supply. Our proposals for consumer protection give customers new rights in two important areas. First, the Bill enables the director general to specify standards which public electricity suppliers should achieve when supplying electricity to domestic premises—for instance, in keeping appointments. If a standard is not met, a customer will receive compensation. That is entirely new.
  Secondly, the Bill enables the director general to set standards of overall performance which public electricity suppliers should achieve. The director general will collect and publish information relating to suppliers' performance under both schemes. That will enable comparisons to be drawn between the performance of different suppliers as a further spur to improve standards of customer service. All the benefits of the existing arrangements for consumer protection will be retained in the new stucture after privatisation.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: What will happen to standing charges after privatisation? Currently, standing charges bear heavily on the poorest in our society—the pensioners and the low paid.
  Mr. Parkinson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the matter was examined carefully. We were told that to abolish standing charges would be an extremely inefficient
  676
  way to help the elderly. Yes, many standing charges are paid by people with second homes, for instance. The hon. Gentleman is effectively saying, "Let us relieve well-to-do sections." The matter was examined in great detail, and it was on the advice of consumer councils that standing charges were maintained.
  The hon. Member for Sedgefield said on 1 December that the Bill does not mention the efficient use of electricity. But if he had read the Bill—I have had my doubts in recent days—and had got as far as clause 3, he would have found that the Bill places a duty on the Secretary of State and on the director general to promote the efficient use of electricity. Supply companies will be required by their licences to provide guidance to their customers on the efficient use of electricity.
  The Electricity Bill also carries out a long overdue and highly necessary modernisation and codification of the law on electricity supply. It sets out a new and comprehensive supply code suitable for the industry in its new role. No fewer than 18 whole Acts—the earliest dating back to 1882—are to be replaced and brought up to date in this Bill.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: Bearing in mind the fact that area boards or replacement companies will retain their complete geographical monopoly, how will my right hon. Friend ensure that showrooms are properly administered to the benefit of consumers? There is evidence, although hazy and vague, that showrooms are inefficiently run by some—not all—area boards. If that were to persist, the consumer would not be served, and costs at the margin would be higher than they would otherwise be.
  Mr. Parkinson: Showrooms and the non-monopoly parts of the business will be separately accounted for to prevent cross-subsidisation, which would be the way to reinforce unfair competition. That will not be allowed by the regulator.
  The sixth principle was that all who work in the industry should be offered a direct stake in their future, with new career opportunities and with freedom to manage their commercial affairs without Government interference. The industry's employees will be transferred to the successor companies which will take over the undertakings where they are working. Their rights and terms and conditions of employment will be safeguarded.
  The rules of the existing electricity supply pension scheme will be amended so that the scheme can continue for the benefit of the employees and pensioners of the industry. These will be attractive provisions at the time of flotation to enable employees to acquire shares in the successor companies. I hope that Opposition Members get the same satisfaction as I do from the fact that the unions are anxious to join the Government in discussing the level of the shareholdings that their members are looking forward to having.
  The Government's proposals for Scotland were set out in the White Paper "Privatisation of the Scottish Electricity Industry", published last March. That document set out the six guiding aims of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland for the privatisation of the industry in Scotland. The Bill will enable those aims to be put into effect.
  Mr. Foulkes: Will the Secretary of State explain precisely why privatisation of the Scottish industry had to be dealt with in this Bill and not in a separate Bill?
  Mr. Parkinson: As a result of the Government and the usual channels getting together, the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity tomorrow to hear from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland precisely why the Bill is sensibly combined with this one.
  Mr. Foulkes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Parkinson: No.
  Mr. Foulkes: It is important.
  Mr. Parkinson: To whom?
  Mr. Foulkes: To the House.
  Mr. Parkinson: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Foulkes: The Secretary of State is the principal responsible Minister. Is he saying that he does not know why there is not a separate Bill? He should explain why, so that my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) knows about it when he speaks.
  Mr. Parkinson: We have explained on several occasions. We believe that the measure incorporates the two measures into one Bill. There is a precedent for that.
  Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We may have to check Hansard, but the Minister said that he and the usual channels had something to do with this being in the one Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): That is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Parkinson: That is how we come to have two days of debate, the second of which will be opened by my right hon. and learned Friend. There is a precedent. The industry was nationalised in England and Scotland in one Bill in 1947. We are just privatising it in one Bill in 1988.
  I should now like to dispose of the myths about our proposals which the hon. Member for Sedgefield, among others, has been spreading. The first concerns electricity prices after privatisation. The hon. Member has chosen to travel around the country proclaiming that the privatisation of electricity will result in a price increase of 25 per cent. by 1990. That bogus figure is based on his confusion and lack of understanding of the subject.
  First, the hon. Gentleman includes all the price increases that result from the increase in the industry's financial targets. They were announced last November. They are nothing new. They were explained. The only thing that is new are the two new increases invented by the hon. Gentleman—one for a non-existent nuclear tax and one to pay dividends. Both are pure fiction. Customers pay nuclear costs now and dividends will be paid, as interest has been paid, out of the profits the industry is making. Not only does the hon. Gentleman invent new costs, but he absolutely ignores any possibility of reducing existing costs.
  As the hon. Member knows full well, the increases in the industry's financial target would have been necessary even if it had remained in the public sector. They have nothing at all to do with privatisation. They have everything to do with ensuring that the taxpayer earns a reasonable return and preventing the misallocation of resources. When the hon. Gentleman's party was last in power, it recognised that principle.
  678
  If Governments invested at an unreasonable rate of return, they were wasting taxpayers' money and pre-empting scarce resources.
  The last Labour Government set nationalised industries a target rate of return on investment of 5 per cent. which they said was necessary to prevent the misallocation of national resources.
  Mr. Salmond: The Secretary of State will know from evidence to the Select Committee that the Hydro Board certainly anticipates a doubling of its rate of return as it moves into the private sector. Does he say that that has nothing to do with privatisation?
  Mr. Parkinson: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will give the hon. Gentleman all the answers that he wants about the Hydro Board in the course of the Scottish day tomorrow [Interruption.] I suspect that that is how it will turn out, whether it is called that or not.
  We believe that it is right that the electricity supply industry, like other industries in the public sector, should earn a reasonable rate of return. But the financial targets that we have set the electricity supply industry for 1988–89 and 1989–90 still fall short of the figure that the Labour Government declared desirable. Those targets could scarcely be called excessive.
  Some statements by Opposition Members appear to suggest that, far from the electricity supply industry earning a reasonable rate of return on its assets, the Government should set the industry a lower financial target. I have to say to the House that to do so would be to sell the taxpayer and the nation short. It is the taxpayer who will be selling this industry and the investor who will buy it. If we sell the industry on the cheap, it is the investor who will benefit and the taxpayer who will lose. We want the electricity supply industry to earn a reasonable rate of return on its assets. One result of that will be that the taxpayer will receive a fair price when the industry is privatised.
  If we really wanted to fatten up the industry, it would be easy. We could simply follow the precedent set by the Labour Government. The Labour party should be the last to talk about price increases. During the five years of the Labour Government, ordinary consumers in England and Wales saw their electricity bills go up by more than 180 per cent. in cash terms, and industrial electricity prices in England and Wales during that period rose by 160 per cent. The idea that a Labour Government controlling a monopoly industry is an insurance against price increases is a best a sick joke.
  The second myth propagated by the hon. Member for Sedgefield is that our proposals involve a new "nuclear tax". The consumer will pay no increased costs beyond those he would have paid under the existing structure. Our proposals will simply identify costs which had previously remained hidden. The fact that these costs will be identified does not mean that there will be an increase. It simply means that they will be identified and subject to scrutiny not rolled up in the bulk supply as at present.
  Mr. Allen McKay: Would the Secretary of State be surprised if Lord Marshall disagrees with him? Nuclear will have to be ring-fenced to make it sustainable and people in the nuclear industry are aware and afraid of that.
  Mr. Parkinson: The idea that all of a sudden, on the day after privatisation or as a result of this Bill, the costs of nuclear energy will in some way increase, is wholly bogus. The cost of nuclear is being paid now by electricity customers. They simply are not told how much they are paying for the nuclear industry. We are prepared to expose those figures and to argue the case for diversity.
  It may come as a surprise to hon. Members, and clearly it does, that we are paying these costs now. It is a measure of how closely they are in touch with these affairs. We have been paying those costs for nearly 30 years, so it is time that they woke up and found out what was happening.
  The clear implication of what the hon. Gentleman says is that his party would not pay these costs in future. I remind him that over 100,000 people work in the nuclear industry, many of them in the north, and not a few in Sedgefield. Cleveland Bridge relies heavily on it and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's constituents and the country would like to know whether his party, if elected, would close the nuclear programme. I hope that today he will tell us. I am sure that his constituents would be interested to know.
  Our proposals represent a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to improve the electricity supply industry. They combine the benefits of security of supply and of increased competition. We believe that, when the industry is in the private sector, it will benefit from its new-found freedom to offer the customer a better deal, both through improved standards of service and the downward pressure on electricity prices from increased competition.
  The essence of this privatisation is to make the industry answerable to the customer and responsive to his needs. The customer wants the best buy. The Bill will bring the benefits of competition to every customer. The customer wants the best service. The Bill will bring new rights and safeguards, and real penalties for poor service. The customer wants a clean, safe environment. The industry will continue to be subject to all the environmental controls now in force. The customer wants a reliable supply of electricity. He will benefit from diversity in electricity generation and the security that that brings.
  As a country, we enjoy a wealth of fuels for electricity generation: coal, oil, gas and nuclear power. We have a range of technologies for using those fuels. Decisions about the use of those fuels and the choice of those technologies are central to our economy. The Government reject the notion that the customer is best served by leaving those decisions in the hands of a dominant, state-owned, cost-plus, monopoly producer.
  The Bill will put power where it belongs: in the hands of the customer and his supplier. I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.26 pm
  Mr. Tony Blair: The Secretary of State provided the best comment on his speech when he told us that it had gone down well at the Conservative party conference. Today he has a more demanding audience—an unwilling and sceptical country. He talked about regulation, and the need for diversity of supply and to protect nuclear power, but he never once gave us the reason for privatising the industry. The question that the country asks and that the Secretary of State must answer is why an industry, brought together in the public interest over 100 years to serve the nation, must now in the same
  680
  public interest be torn apart, broken up, and sold in two years to serve the demands of private profit. What reason did we hear today for privatisation other than privatisation for its own sake?
  From the days when only a tiny fraction of the population had access to electricity, to the mushrooming of hundreds of small electricity suppliers and private and municipal generators, when excess capacity was over 80 per cent. and inefficiency was rife, to the establishment of a central electricity board and a national grid in the public sector by a Tory Government, to full public ownership under a Labour government in 1947—throughout all those decades of restructuring, streamlining, innovation and change—there was one driving impulse that has gone today: the creation of an electrical supply industry where the technology of electricity was harnessed to the needs of the nation. Now the Secretary of State says that all that is better left to the market.
  It cannot be stressed too strongly that our modern industry was not built on a foundation of success created by market forces. It was created by clearing the rubble of disorganised chaos that they left behind. What is so wrong with the industry today that it is incapable of alteration in public ownership? What are the clear benefits that will flow from it being split and sold?
  The right hon. Gentleman cannot answer that question by pointing to some superior experience abroad. There is no simple model of electricity supply anywhere in the world. In some countries it is private; in some it is public, and in some it is mixed; but certain things stand out everywhere. The first is that, whether private as in the United States or Japan, municipal as in West Germany, public as in France or Italy, or mixed as in Belgium, there is no such structure as is proposed here, with generation, transmission and distribution all separately split up and privately owned.
  No such structure exists anywhere else in the world. Most electricity supply industries are vertically integrated, which is what the Secretary of State proposes for Scotland. Some have separate generation and transmission, but only where there is a state-owned national grid, and some have separate distribution, but none has what we are contemplating. However, that is not to say that such structures have never existed. They have existed in some form in most countries. Indeed, they have existed in some form here, but they did not work and that is why they were changed. Therefore, what is proposed today is not something radical, evolutionary and new, but something old-fashioned, and failed.
  Secondly, even when the industry is privately owned abroad, in most countries major strategic decisions are taken by Governments, not companies. Whether in Switzerland, where the Government have recently ordered the private sector to drop the new nuclear reactor programme, or in Japan where the level of demand and the type and capacity of power stations is fed through the planning process of MITI, the public sector, by the very nature of the energy industry is comprehensively involved.
  However, what we learn most of all from abroad is that, until recently, when the Secretary of State forced up prices, our electricity was among the cheapest in the world. It was cheaper than that in Japan, America, West Germany, Italy, and France—it was cheaper than electricity anywhere except for a few countries with access—
  Mr. Keith Mans rose—
  Mr. Blair: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
  Our electricity was cheaper than anywhere except for a few countries with access to large natural resources, cheap labour or both.
  Therefore, we start the debate from the position that, for both industrial and domestic customers, our prices are comparatively low in the public sector. Indeed, that is no doubt why just a short time ago, when he was a Minister at the Department of Energy, the hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), described our industry as "the envy of the world".
  Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman refers to all those countries, but I notice that he carefully avoids any mention of West Germany or Japan. Will he explain why?
  Mr. Blair: I have just mentioned them.
  Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Prices in Japan are almost twice ours, and prices in West Germany are about 50 per cent. higher.
  Mr. Blair: The right hon. Gentleman does not understand—that is exactly what I am saying. Electricity prices are more expensive everywhere else in the private sector—for example, they are more expensive in Japan—but they are cheaper in the public sector here. What the right hon. Gentleman is forgetting throughout the debate is that he must make the case for the privatisation of the industry. We start from this position—
  Mr. Mans rose—
  Mr. John Maples rose—
  Mr. Blair: I give way to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples).
  Mr. Maples: Will the hon. Gentleman help to clear up something about the relative merits of public and private ownership? Will a future Labour Government renationalise the whole industry, and if so, on what terms?
  Mr. Blair: We are proud that we took the industry into public ownership. When we come to power it will be reinstated as a public service for the people of this country, and will not be run for private profit.
  There is no answer to our question there about what happens abroad—
  Mr. Mans: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. If he is saying that publicly generated electricity in France is more expensive than it is in this country, why do we import electricity from France?
  Mr. Blair: We import it because the public sector there subsidises it. If the hon. Gentleman looks at prices in France, he will find that the domestic price for French electricity is higher than that in the United Kingdom.
  The Secretary of State cannot point to any model abroad, so he is saying that our low prices—until he started forcing up the rate of return, our electricity prices had fallen 17 per cent. in real terms in the past few years in the public sector—can be driven lower still through the structure that he proposes. However, he is rather coy about exactly when that will happen. The Secretary of State has told us that there will be downward pressure on costs. If he is under pressure, he will even say that there will be downward pressure on prices, which is, of course, something different.
  682
  Central to the Secretary of State's case is that he can, as he put it—somewhat disloyally to his colleagues—at a conference organised by The Economist a few weeks ago,
  "ensure that in contrast to previous privatisations, like British Telecom and Gas, there will be no single monolithic British Electricity, whose customers are effectively left to bear the risks. Real competition will exist from the word go."
  That was the Secretary of State's boast. He said that there will not be another British Telecom or British Gas, and that he would not repeat the mistakes of his colleagues.
  The Secretary of State says that he is introducing real competition. He kept on mentioning competition during his speech, as if, the more he mentioned it, the more real it became. However, he should analyse what is happening.
  Let us take the notion that the right hon. Gentleman is introducing competition and examine it in stages. There are 74 stations at the moment, supplying between 50 and 55 GW of electricity. Those power stations are to be divided between the two big companies, big G and little G. They will continue to be contracted to supply the grid, competing as at present under the merit order system, which calls on the stations in order of greatest efficiency. The Secretary of State's proudest boast about that system is that he can maintain it—not change it or improve it. Therefore, any competition in generation will be addressing future new capacity arising either from old stations that are being shut down or from additional demand.
  There is some dispute about demand. The Central Electricity Generating Board puts it fairly high, at between 12 and 15 GW, so I shall accept that for the purposes of the argument. The Secretary of State says that there will be competition to supply the new capacity. But wait—one third of that new capacity will be nuclear, so there will not be any competition there. There is to be ring-fenced, protected status for the nuclear industry. Therefore, in reality, we must subtract that from the competition. Wait again—under the Secretary of State's provisions the area boards can build their own power stations, but they are monopoly area board suppliers, so that too must come off the total competition.
  The most extraordinary evidence that was given to the Select Committee came from the Association of Independent Electricity Producers, which, when asked about the prospects of private generation stated, as quoted at paragraph 45 of the Select Committee's report:
  "we would view another 4GW over the present situation by the year 2000 as being about the upper end of the range."
  The Committee added:
  "As one might reasonably expect, that is assuming that everything goes well from the date of the privatisation."
  So there we have it; by the year 2000, roughly 4 GW—one fifteenth, just 6 to 7 per cent.—of our generation will be open for real competition. That is the reality of the Secretary of State's proposals. And even then, that assumes that what exists in theory will also exist in practice.
  Mr. Peter Rost: If the hon. Gentleman knew anything about the industry, he would know, instead of scoring cheap political points, that the estimate given by the independent power producers is only one estimate, and that others are much higher. He would also know that offers of electricity have been made and are now being contracted to the new area boards at lower prices than the CEGB is charging its area boards.
  Mr. Blair: I was interested in what the Secretary of State said about that. He said that independent producers now wanted to contract some 20 projects in the electricity industry. The figure has increased by five or six since a few days ago, when the Secretary of State referred to 14 or 15.
  Mr. Parkinson indicated assent.
  Mr. Blair: Yes, the Secretary of State confirms that the number has increased.
  We tabled a parliamentary question to find out exactly what the projects were. We were informed that we could not be told that because they were in confidence. Culling through the newspapers, there may well be various assessments of what independent producers can do, but I advise the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) that the association that represents independent producers has a slightly better idea than he does of what is likely to happen.
  Let us assume that what exists in theory can happen in practice. What then? We know that there is to be a duopoly after privatisation: big G and little G. That duopoly led Professor Robinson and Mr. Sykes of Consolidated Gold Fields plc, whom one would hardly think of as rampant Left wingers, to tell the Select Committee:
  "Duopoly is generally an unsatisfactory market structure. There is a strong incentive to collude … Even without explicit collusion, it is well known that firms in duopoly tend not to compete on price in the hope of avoiding price wars. Consequently, the mechanism that competition normally provides to pass cost reductions on to the consumer is ineffective".
  They concluded:
  "we would expect prices to be higher than under continued nationalisation."
  However, it is not merely that. It is the independent projects that he says will exist.
  The right hon. Gentleman has talked in recent days about there being power stations built in the expectation that they will then be able to supply the electricity industry. I must tell him that I would have thought that it was highly unlikely—virtually impossible—that anyone would build a power station and invest hundreds of millions of pounds, unless they received a guarantee covering the capital cost, the fuel cost and, probably, as in the United States, the operating costs, too. Therefore, the idea that we will have an influx of power stations, all competing on the grid, is nonsense.
  Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman talked about duopoly. He ignored Scotland and the five independent generators that already exist, where there is substantial over-capacity for which English boards are already signing up. He ignored, too, the 2,000 MW French link. I assure him that there are 20 projects, representing 10 GW, which are well on the way to being fully signed up. He will look very foolish in about three years' time when he reads this rubbish.
  Mr. Blair: I understand that we shall get an answer to that question in three years' time.
  The right hon. Gentleman talked about electricity coming from Scotland or France, but that is electricity coming from public ownership. That has nothing to do with privatisation or the arguments about whether the structure should be changed. Even if we accept that there will be more electrical generation and competition, the critical point will be upon whom this competitive pressure will actually operate. The answer is that it will operate on
  684
  the generators. However, the customers contract not with the generators, but with the area boards, which are monopolies. If it operates at all, competition must operate through choice.
  The choice here is given to the monopoly suppliers. They will be able to award contracts to whomever they wish—even to themselves. The truth is that there is no competitive pressure in this structure at the point of consumption, which is the only competitive pressure that matters. In fact, when we analyse what the right hon. Gentleman has said, we see that there is less competition than between British Telecom and Mercury. At least with British Telecom and Mercury, one can pick up the telephone and change the telephone operator so that one contracts with Mercury in that small part of the market. Here, there will be no choice whatever.
  In exchange for having no choice, we have the reality of higher prices. That is not something that is in the future, or some vague promise such as the Secretary of State has made, that prices may come down. Indeed, outside of the Conservative party and the Department of Energy, it is barely in issue that prices will rise because of privatisation. The national utility services said that our prices would become among the highest in the world and last week, the CBI called it an inflationary own goal. The National Consumer Council, Cambridge Econometrics, the Electricity Consumers Council and the London Electricity Consultative Council all said that it would mean higher prices.
  The Economist said this about what the right hon. Gentleman called our fantasies:
  "Nuclear power is the cause of other headaches. Because it is (for now) the costliest way to generate electricity, and because the industry will be allowed to pass on a chunk of that extra cost, consumers will effectively pay a 'nuclear tax' every time they switch on. On top of that, the taxpayer is to subsidise the cost to National Power of reprocessing and disposing of nuclear fuel, and meet part of its hefty bill for decomissioning nuclear stations. Add all this to a 15 per cent. rise in Britain's electricity bills before the sale and—for consumers—privatisation hardly seems a blessing."
  Perhaps the most extraordinary statement came from the present Chancellor of the Exchequer—an expert on rising prices—when he was the Secretary of State for Energy. He was asked by one of his hon. Friends whether the best way of holding down electricity prices was not the private generation of electricity, and he said:
  "I would not like to promise that private generation of electricity is the best way of holding down prices."—[Official Report, 8 February 1982; Vol. 17, c. 726.]
  Against the right hon. Gentleman's promise of downward pressure on cost, years ahead, we have the fact of the 9 per cent. rise last April, the fact of the 6 per cent. rise this April, and the dividend yield, quite apart form the cost of nuclear power.
  Worse than that, because of the mechanism that the right hon. Gentleman has introduced, we will lose the obligation to supply that is presently on the generators. He told us that he is placing that obligation of supply on the area boards—the suppliers. They can only supply what is generated. What determines whether they are planning ahead sufficiently, ensuring that there is enough capacity to meet future demand or ensuring that there is not excess capacity that will cost the industry dear? Who will be given responsibility for planning once generators no longer have that critical obligation of supply?
  For losing the right of supply from the only people capable of fulfilling it and for competition, if we are lucky,

  685
  in 6 or 7 per cent. of generation by the year 2000—twice removed from the customer—we must endure rising prices, huge cost dislocation, and the risks of this Bill. If that is the bargain that the right hon. Gentleman offers Britain's 22 million consumers, it is no wonder that every opinion poll shows how massively it is opposed.
  The truth is that the right hon. Gentleman never asked for a moment whether privatising this industry was in the interests of consumers. The only questions that he was permitted to ask were, how he could privatise and how fast. It is the same with the structure. The right hon. Gentleman never asked what was best for the industry. He was simply haunted by one thing—after the embarrassment over the monopoly sale of gas and Telecom, he feared that he would be accused of privatising this industry as a monopoly. That is not a good thing to have on the right hon. Gentleman's job application form to be Chancellor, which was his only concern.
  At the heart of this proposal is a gaping black hole where the interests of the consumers should be. The right hon. Gentleman may have started out with the intention of avoiding the errors of Telecom and gas, but, in the event, he has simply compounded them.
  He claims that the privatisation of the electrical supply will be in the interests of the nation. He says, especially, that it will guarantee the continuation of the nuclear programme, and he condemns as a figment of our imagination the notion of a nuclear tax. The twists and turns on this aspect have really been extraordinary. I believe that, in its briefing, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations called it outrageous. There have been a series of stories in the press about the existence of a nuclear tax.
  Mr. John ButterfillInspired by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Blair: The hon. Gentleman says that they are inspired by me. He pays great tribute to my powers of inspiration, as some of those stories appeared before I became shadow Energy Secretary.
  There were leaked stories in detail, culminating in a front-page story on Monday 21 November in the Financial Times—
  "Nuclear Programme Tax to be Imposed on Electricity Consumers"—
  which set out in detail exactly how this tax was to be imposed and levied, and saying, of course, that it was to build the new PWRs. I checked today and there has been no denial of the truth of that story from the Department of Energy or from any Minister.
  When I asked the right hon. Gentleman a month ago at Question Time "to deny unequivocally" that any such plans for a nuclear tax existed, I received this unequivocal denial:
  "We have a declared policy that 15 to 20 per cent. of our electricity will be supplied from nuclear sources because we believe that diversity of supply is essential to security. There will, therefore, be a nuclear component. The question of nuclear economics is extremely hard to settle."—[Official Report, 7 November 1988, Vol. 140, c. 4-5.]
  That was the ringing denial on 7 November. The truth is that, until this Bill was published, there was never any serious attempt to deny that there would be this tax.
  686
  Today, we have been given the astonishing explanation that we have been paying it already, and it is just to assist us that it is being made transparent on electricity bills.
  I have two questions that I shall ask the right hon. Gentleman about that. First of all, it is curious that we are supposed to be paying it already, because I had understood Ministers to have been telling us for the past 10 years that nuclear power was cheaper, which was why we should be investing in it.
  Secondly, if the simple reason is to make it more transparent, why is nuclear made transparent on our bill, and not coal, gas, oil or any of the other sources of energy? In particular, why do clause 31 and the notes to the Bill specifically make mention of a levy to cover the excess cost of nuclear over conventional? Why is all that in the Bill if it is just a figment of our imagination?
  The reason is set out in a memorandum from Mr. John Baker, CEGB managing director, shortly to be the director of the new National Power, which will take over nuclear capacity. That memorandum was marked "confidential", which is a sure sign that it was about to be leaked, and was sent to Mr. John Guinness deputy secretary at the Department of Trade and Industry. Mr. Baker said:
  "The only contract which Nuclear Power … will be able to agree to sign will be one in which both parties can have full confidence in the recovery of costs from their respective customers."
  He said that the CEGB view of the nuclear option was now quite different from its position before privatisation proposals because it would need to become substantially more risk-averse. He then went on to say that that was why the successor company
  "can no longer make the national case for pressurised water reactors".
  The truth of the matter is that the tax will be imposed to meet the costs not of existing stations, but of the four new nuclear-powered reactors. The Government knew that this tax would be necessary, because otherwise the private sector would not build nuclear power stations. They also know that the notion of a special Tory tax to pay for power plants that the country neither wants nor needs, is publicly offensive and politically suicidal. Therefore, their response is not to be honest about the tax, but to suppress admission of its existence. That is the true explanation of what lies behind the nuclear tax.
  What about our invention of the likely cost of the nuclear tax? That figure is supplied from evidence given to the Hinkley inquiry by, among others, the London Business School, hardly a left-wing fantasiser, and Dr. Mark Barrett of the earth resources research unit, and the science policy research unit that advises the Select Committee and which has backed up what Labour has said. The CEGB has also said that if the rate of return proposed by the London Business School is accepted, such a nuclear tax will be introduced. It is not us who need to justify our position, but the Secretary of State who should come clean with us.
  We could have a debate out diversity of supply. What on earth does that argument have to do with privatising the industry? I do not believe that the Secretary of State understands that the key contradiction that he must resolve about the nuclear industry is why, if that industry is ripe for the private sector, it is to be given special protected status and set apart. If privatisation is the answer, why is it the answer for the rest of the electrical supply industry but not for the nuclear industry? The Secretary of State must answer that question.

  687
  The risks that will be borne by the taxpayer will also be borne by the country. The nuclear waste bill now stands at £4·5 billion. The Select Committee has said that the decommissioning of power stations could cost between £250 million and £750 million per station. Schedule 12 makes provision for that to be paid for out of grants and loans.
  Mr. Parkinson indicated dissent.
  Mr. Blair: Yes it does, I am afraid to say.
  The Secretary of State tells us that we are already paying such costs, so what are we worried about? We are worried because we shall keep on paying the costs of nuclear power, but we shall be losing the profit from the industry—we shall lose £1·5 billion a year in profits.
  What is outrageous about the Bill is that, for the first time that I remember, it enacts public risk and private profit. The Secretary of State's singular achievement has been to bring forward the only privatisation measure where, in exchange for the public underwriting the risks of privatisation, investors will be free to take monopoly profit from the captive consumers providing that subsidy. Such loss is quite apart from the substantial loss on assets that will arise if the industry is sold as an undervalue.
  Discount privatisations have happened before with British Telecom, British Gas, the British Airports flotation and Rolls-Royce. The electricity industry is worth almost £40 billion, and if it is sold at £20 billion or less, it will he the first privatisation that is not just cut-price, but half-price. We will lose the benefits of the assets sold.
  All those unresolved contradictions underline the stupidity, indeed the impossibility, of an energy policy determined by the interests of the private sector. The very considerations most critical to securing the long-term future electrical supply are the very ones least suited to the inevitable short-term demands of the market. That is why, at the crux of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, lies a clash of interests that he cannot conceal between ideology that drags him toward market forces and reality that compels him to recognise the need for a strong public sector.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: When my hon. Friend asked why we should be worried about this, I do not know whether he overheard the aside from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), who said that the Opposition should be worried that £20 billion will go into the Government coffers just before the next election.
  Mr. Blair: There are occasions when Conservative Members lapse into frankness.
  The Secretary of State's proposals are now virtually friendless. Mr. Alex Henney, a former supporter, has turned his back on them. Dr. Dieter Helm of Oxford university, a supporter of the privatisation programme, has said:
  "If you take the balance of the degree of competition, the amount of regulation, the disruption caused and the need for lots of investment in this industry, in the future then I find it very hard to believe that the consequences are going to be anything other than price rises. The consumer's going to pick up quite a large bill for this privatisation."
  Dr. Yarrow, of Oxford university, is another former supporter of privatisation who has deserted the sinking ship.
  688
  In truth, there is no support left anywhere for the proposals, except from the vested interests that the Government now represent, the vested interests in the City. Hoare Govett, in its recent analysis of the Secretary of State's proposals, which it condemns, rather disarmingly said:
  "At least all of this will provide much-needed work for merchant banks and brokers in the City".
  That is the only occasion when I have heard privatisation justified as part of a City jobs programmes.
  Dr. Michael Clark: The hon. Gentlernan has moved on since he accused some Conservative Members of indulging in frankness. Would he care to indulge in some frankness and tell us how his party, when and if it returns to power, will pay for nationalising the electricity supply industry? Will it be through huge tax increases?
  Mr. Blair: We will reinstate it as a proper public service under public control.
  It is not merely the City vested interests who support the Government. They also have the support of senior managers within the electricity industry who expect to be enjoying the same 78 per cent. average increase in the salary enjoyed by the top management of other privatised industries in the year after privatisation. Apart from that, however, what support can the right hon. Gentleman claim for the proposals?
  Perhaps the most interesting desertion from the ranks of previous privatisers is that of Mr. Andrew Cooper, self-confessed admirer of the Prime Minister and former head of the Institution of Electrical Engineers. In a letter to the Financial Times on 12 September, he said:
  "I have just returned from a one-week biennial conference of more than 2,000 leading electrical engineers from 79 countries.
  Having been a member of this organisation for more than 40 years, and its world president for the maximum term of six years, many people talk to me. What seemed to dominate everyone's thinking was the privatisation of the United Kingdom electrical supply industry.
  Their views could be encapsulated in a single phrase: 'You must be mad.'."
  That is what is thought elsewhere of the Government's proposals. Yet it is even worse than that. Take the major issue of energy conservation. We are the worst insulated nation in Europe. The Department of Energy's budget has been slashed by more than a half. Schemes to promote energy conservation, which are cost-effective and of huge environmental benefit, have been scrapped. Consider the major problems and environmental difficulties that we face with coal and nuclear power. Consider the exciting developments in research and technology that the public sector has undertaken, but which the private sector will often find incompatible with its short-term profits. Consider the crippling fuel poverty of the poorest in our society who heat their homes most inefficiently and spend four times the average on heating.
  When we consider these new issues on the horizon and appreciate what a real agenda for a modern energy policy for Britain will contain, we see that it is not just the cost that the consumer will pay; it is not just the burden that the country will bear; it is the sheer, breathtaking irrelevance of these proposals to modern issues of today.
  I shall tell the House why the Bill comes before us. It staggers on, uncertain in its reasons, untested in its consequences and rejected even by those who gave it intellectual birth, because it is still sustained and propped

  689
  up by the two most ancient principles of the Tory party, prejudice and greed—greed for profits which are neither earned nor deserved, greed of a Treasury that has for so long paid the country's bills by selling the country's assets that it now knows no other way; and the simple and sinister prejudice that what is private is always right and what is public is always wrong. It is on that slender stem of dogma that the future of our electricity supply industry now rests.
  The Conservative party can speak for the vested interests of City speculators and the irrational crusades of the ideologues. The Opposition will speak for the 22 million electricity consumers. We will speak out for industry that needs access to cheap electricity at reasonable prices. We will speak up for a country that knows the good sense of a public industry in public hands.
  6.1 pm
  Mr. David Howell: I listened during the speech of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to find out whether the new generation of Labour whizz kids was striking a different pose from their elders who can no longer whizz. I must conclude from what I have heard that there is no change. The Labour party is still firmly locked, despite the eloquence of the hon. Member for Sedgefield, in its Albanian mood. It is ignoring the new thinking about electricity supply organisation around the planet, in countries as diverse as Malaysia and the Soviet Union. It is ignoring the private pattern of electricity supply in the United States, Germany, Belgium, Spain and Japan. In all those areas, private enterprise is permitting new technology and innovation without the dead hand of the state upon them. All that is ignored, even by the younger generation of the Labour party. Those who thought that in the Labour party there were sprouts of hope and some vague understanding of the more fragmented, less centralised, state-dominated world, would have been utterly disillusioned.
  The dramatic move towards privatisation and the injection of competition into the electricity supply industry is welcome, and no one should underrate the difficulties which have been faced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We are moving towards some competition on the generating side. The new system will include a large generating company, National Power, and a slightly smaller company, Power Gen. Supplies will be available from Scotland and France. The switching station at Sellindge provides 2 GW at full capacity, and I have no doubt that another switching station could be constructed. They are good value. The one which I authorised in 1981 cost £360 million and brought into the British system 2 GW of electricity at competitive prices, which were negotiated by the CEGB. I hope that such ideas will be developed further as the choices of sources of electricity supply open out.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the possibility, which the new area electricity companies will vigorously explore, of developing a range of much smaller gas turbines, supplied by dedicated North sea gas fields. There will also be coastal power stations that depend on coal—I hope that it will be British coal, but it must be the cheapest, which may be imported. There are
  690
  opportunities for electricity to be brought into the system at highly competitive rates and sold to industrial and domestic consumers.
  Over the years, the process of competition and the diversity of sources are bound to lead us away from the hideous pattern of the past, when we depended on a higher cost, coal-dominated electricity system which was not even reliable. The new system will be a vast improvement. Those who cannot see that are still obsessed by views of state ownership and state domination which have been undermined by not only modern economics but modern technology. Economies of scale are being substantially reversed by electronic technology, not least in power generation and distribution.
  The remaining monopolies—the area boards which will be turned into 12 new companies—must be regulated. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set out the pattern of regulation under which they will operate. It is eminently sensible and is a vast improvement on the so-called regulation that has occurred in nationalised industries, with "breakfast table" directives and instructions behind closed doors. The Opposition extol that as a system, but it never was a system. It was a miserable mixture of politics and pressure whereby one group of people—the customers and consumers—always came last while wheeling and dealing went on in Whitehall as to how those industries should operate and invest.
  I freely confess that I speak as an old lag on this subject. I have been involved, and I know that that system is not good for the allocation of resources or for democracy, because the deals are not transparent. Above all, they are not good for the customer and consumer, or for the future strength and innovative capacity of the industry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has moved boldly and sensibly. This must be the way forward.
  I cannot understand why those in the Labour party who have thought about this subject and come to it with fresh minds still cling to the absurd idea of a huge, state-dominated, nationalised electricity supply industry. That is out of date. I urge the hon. Member for Sedgefield, if he wants to influence his party, to move away from that nonsense. I do not know who insisted that he put in his speech all the talk of renationalisation. If he wants to be given a hearing, he must get away from that kind of rubbish.
  The most difficult problem to face my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is covered by clause 30 onwards—how to deal with nuclear power generation under privatisation. It is not my right hon. Friend's fault that the problem has been made more tricky. The cost of nuclear power has increased a little, because of the cost of capital and of increasingly elaborate safety measures—which I welcome—and is said to be about 2-2p per kilowatt hour, whereas the price of electricity supplied from oil, natural gas and, to some extent, coal has been decreasing. That leaves us with an unavoidable dilemma. Even if there were no Bill before us, we would be facing a dilemma. Nuclear power at present, even before we think of new build and the programme after Sizewell, is probably uncompetitive in terms of oil, gas or coal.
  Thanks to my right hon. Friend's proposals for greater transparency about the costs of all these fuels and about generating activities, we are beginning to see the very high costs that we have paid for coal. There is no doubt that, as society becomes more concerned about pollution costs and moves towards insisting that there should be emission

  691
  controls and desulphurisation and so on, the cost of coal-fired electricity will rise. That is inevitable, even if the coal is drawn from the cheapest world sources, let alone drawn from some of the higher cost pits in Britain.
  On the whole, it is obvious that, even with those extra costs, coal will continue to play an important part in generation. I hope that United Kingdom coal will be highly competitive. I think that it will. British coal producers, who I hope in due course will also be in the private sector, will be entitled to say that, whatever happened in the past and despite the total unreliability of the coal industry and its betrayal by trade union activity, in future it will be worth paying a premium for what should be a reliable national provision of coal from our superb coalfields.
  There is a place for coal, but when all is said and done and the costs are put together, we are left with the difficulty that, for the moment, the existing nuclear power programme looks as if it costs more. That is because one must add the costs of fuel reprocessing, waste disposal and decommissioning.
  Mr. Parkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, had the industry stayed in the public sector and had Lord Marshall retained the obligation to supply, he has made it quite clear that the four PWRs would have been built and that, whatever they cost, the customer would have paid for them? It is this change in the structure that is opening up the debate.
  Mr. Howell: My right hon. Friend is right: the debate is indeed opening up. The decision to put nuclear power in the private sector raises quite separate and crucial issues. First, it still leaves us with one extremely large generating company, one of the largest in the world. I wish that my right hon. Friend could have found a way round that. That company will carry the nuclear programme. Some of us would have liked to see a way to have four or five generating boards, all somewhat smaller, rather than an extremely large one and a very large one. I have said that to my right hon. Friend, so it is nothing new.
  As I said earlier, I accept that electricity will come from other sources—from Scotland and France and from gas turbines and so on—but the pattern falls a little short of what one hoped for in a competitive electricity supply industry. My right hon. Friend had to grapple with this problem and it raised two issues. First of all, there is the point that we have now reached in the existing nuclear programme and the cost of that. If it had previously cost more to produce electricity from existing nuclear capacity than from oil, coal and gas, that was all lost in the accounts.
  My right hon. Friend has had the courage to make changes to ensure that that cost will now be visible. If it is visible and if there are other electricity sources which my right hon. Friend has taken steps to open up and from which distributors of electricity can buy, to what extent does the 20 per cent. non-fossil obligation mean that lower prices from the other competitive sources will not be allowed to work through? That presents a difficulty and we must look carefully at it as we measure the cost of the existing nuclear programme.
  My right hon. Friend has said that the CEGB has made a provision of over £3 billion for the existing programe—I thought that it was a little less than that—with associated special tax reliefs for the accumulated provision
  692
  to meet all these additional costs. Investors will be glad to have had my right hon. Friend's reassurance that powers will be there for the Government to step in to meet the additional costs, if they arise, for reprocessing, waste disposal, and decommissioning and so on in the existing programme to be inherited by National Power. That is the problem for the existing nuclear programme, and I hope that what my right hon. Friend has said resolves it for people who will invest in the industry.
  I now come to the completely different question of the cost of new build. My right hon. Friend has put us on exactly the right path. If we had gone on with new build lost in the public sector, we would also have lost any proper measure of competitive costs or of the right pace at which to build. I shall put aside for the moment the question whether we keep open a nuclear programme. My personal view is that it would be crazy to close it, but if we keep it open it must be at a cost that we know. My right hon. Friend's proposals will identify the cost of new build and, more important, will create pressures to reduce those costs.
  Such benefits would have been lacking in the state industry proposed by the hon. Member for Sedgefield, although I do not know whether he has the courage to say that he would close the nuclear programme. If he proposes to keep the nuclear programme, he would have to justify the pattern of losing costs in the endless add-on cost system that we have experienced. That pushes on to the consumers the non-transparent costs of nuclear power. He did not justify that at all, but shirked the issue. The issue has now been brought into the light of day by my right hon. Friend and we shall now be able to see the pressures on the industry to ensure that nuclear new build from Sizewell on is conducted on competitive lines and not just on a subsidised pattern.
  I should like my right hon. Friend to reassure us that there will be constant and maximum pressure on National Power to ensure that it proceeds with its new build programme and on terms that are as near as possible to those that are settled by the market. I would go further and say that, when it comes to financing new build, we shall be dealing with a company that will have very little debt. That is an attractive proposition for some investors and means that the company can go into the market and raise money. It will be able to do that provided that it does not intend to pursue uneconomic activities.
  Oil costs are low and likely to stay low for a long time. Coal costs are also low and, I hope, likely to remain so. Natural gas prices are low. That means that the pressure is on to follow the market solution, and that should be a requirement. It may be that this is a different scene From the one that we faced almost a decade ago when OPEC was alleged to have a grip on oil supplies and when there was a panic among countries to procure oil and prices were shooting through the roof. We are now in a totally different situation and the world's chief oil supplier, Saudi Arabia, is trying to establish a situation in which I here will not be another oil shock. Saudi Arabia wants to re-establish oil as a low-cost reliable fuel producing and selling at about $15 US at 1987 prices indefinitely. The more successful it is with that programme the more challenging it will be to the nuclear power builders to show that they can build nuclear power stations—especially with capital at its current cost—at competitive levels.
  There are problems, but I do not think that my right hon. Friend has sought to disguise them. On the contrary,

  693
  he has sought to expose them, whereas the mish-mash of Socialist Whitehall planning would have lost those costs and ensured that in the end they finished up on the backs of customers, taxpayers and society and, worse, on the back of industry, in an intolerable way that undermined our competitive strength. My right hon. Friend has been true to his principles in seeking to identify where resources ae going and where they should go. That will enable us to debate the matter. I applaud his courage in doing that. He has faced many difficulties in bringing forward the scheme and there could well be more to come. I applaud his courage in bringing the whole scheme and the costs into the light of day.
  6.19 pm
  Mr. Alex Eadie: Now on the Back Benches after 16 years as a Front Bench energy spokesman, I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) on his speech. He gave the Secretary of State for Energy a bit of a roasting and a bit of an examination, and I expect that all objective commentators will report that tomorrow. It is well known that the Secretary of State for Energy does not like to be examined. He is always available for the "Today" radio car or for television, but he does not like either to be challenged or to have his propositions examined. My hon. Friend's excellent contribution examined the Secretary of State's propositions. We shall hear more of my hon. Friend.
  To some extent, the speech of the Secretary of State—we may even hear from the Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy—bore out the uncertainty and confusion that are in the Bill. The Government's proposals for privatisation have already been criticised by the Select Committee, which alleged that the Government have not got their Bill right. On the Order Paper is a motion, in the name of the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd), that the Bill should be committed to a Special Standing Committee. That speaks volumes in support of my assertion that the Secretary of State has not got his proposals right, with resulting confusion in the Bill.
  Dr. Michael Clark: That motion was signed by about half of the members of the Select Committee. The other half refused to sign it.
  Mr. Eadie: I can understand that. There is a certain aspect of what one might call loyalty to one's party.
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Is my hon. Friend aware that the report was agreed to unanimously, by all the members of the Committee, including the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark)?
  Mr. Eadie: The members of the Select Committee can fight this one out themselves. There is tremendous loyalty in the Select Committee, which is Tory-dominated, and this aspect has come to the fore. However, members of the Select Committee can make their own speeches and answer for themselves. If one reads the Bill, one can see that the Select Committee's conclusions are, in general, a criticism of the Bill.
  The Secretary of State has never made any secret of his view that electricity prices had to increase to make the industry more attractive to investors. He is on the record
  694
  as having said that earlier in the year. When he was challenged on that, he said that the industry must be profitable if it is to be privatised. How does he expect private capital to buy the industry unless it is profitable? He cannot deny that, because it is on the record.
  Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman's party has recently made a great thing of the fact that Government assets have been sold off too cheaply. What he is saying, is "Depress the profits—don't get a fair or excessive rate of return." Then he is turning round and, because I am getting a fair return, saying that I am helping the investors. I would help the investors by keeping profits down so that they get a bargain. I want a fair return and a fair price for the taxpayer. The taxpayer receives and the investor pays.
  Mr. Eadie: I had better start to claim injury time. The Secretary of State has made another speech. I am sticking to what I said. The right hon. Gentleman said in the House that, if the electricity industry was privatised, electricity prices would go up to make it a favourable buy. He can wriggle as much as he likes, but he has said it and the House must bear that in mind as we debate the Bill.
  The Government's aim is profit first, with the lot of the consumer second. Only a Government with such a large majority would have the audacity to tell users of electricity that increased prices are good for them. They say that competition will be introduced and that that will benefit the consumer. However, when they are trapped, as they were during energy questions today, Ministers imply that prices will not increase as much as they would have without privatisation. Here we have some aspects of the inconsistency and doublespeak of the Government and their spokesmen.
  There used to be a saying, "If you go first, I'll go afore you." This is what the Government are saying about prices. If ever the consumers were being offered a pig in the poke, this is it. The Government suggest that the Bill will give more choice, but consumers will not have alternative sources of electricity supply. The Secretary of State made the ridiculous suggestion that consumers would have two plugs. The reality of the Bill is that private monopoly will be the supplier and the consumer will have to like it or lump it.
  As a result of the Bill, blatant preference will be given to nuclear power, and tagged on to that is the suggestion that there will be opportunities to develop benign sources of power. No one in the power industry believes that. The arguments in favour of blatant preference for, or even compulsion on, the use of nuclear power are the most unconvincing in the Bill. It cannot be argued on price, and the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) conceded that to some extent. Lord Marshall himself has confessed that nuclear power is more expensive than coal. As we have our debate, the Hinkley Point inquiry is getting the same evidence on prices. This is despite the fact that the argument about favourable prices for the consumer was introduced by Government spokesmen.
  It is all very well for the Government to argue their case, but I resent their attempts to build up the case for nuclear power by attacking the coal industry. That is the most unconvincing one of all. We had at energy questions again today the suggestion that coal-generated power is much more polluting than nuclear power, and that it is dangerous for men to work in that industry. That has not

  695
  stopped British Coal from suggesting, with full Government approval, that miners should now work 10 hours a day underground.
  What about the pollution argument? We should all be concerned about the greenhouse effect on our environment, but the coal industry can plead 'not guilty' to being a major pollutant on that. Coal consumption contributes to only a small part of global emissions of greenhouse gases. Other sources of emission include oil, gas, chemical and other industrial processes.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: And farming.
  Mr. Eadie: Indeed. Coal, however, has been singled out as the major source of the emission that is thought to cause acid rain, but all fossil fuels contribute to the global emission. It is a bit rich when we are told by the Secretary of State that we must have nuclear power because fossil fuels are wasting assets. Of course they are wasting assets. The word that many use is finite. Coal, however, is a fossil fuel which could last the nation for 300 years. There is nothing very finite about that, especially when a comparison is made between coal and oil and gas. The consequence of the Government's policy on oil is that we are probably seeing now the best years of oil from the North sea.
  Mr. Mans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Eadie: No. I want to continue my speech.
  It is generally agreed that carbon dioxide is responsible for nearly half of the greenhouse effect, and research shows that the worldwide burning of coal accounts for 15 per cent. of that effect. The British coal industry can plead not guilty because it is responsible for about 0·5 per cent. of the worldwide emission. The new, clean coal technologies will further reduce emissions from coal-fired plants.
  We are to have blatant preference for nuclear power, and that will be based on misinformation about coal. There is to be protection for nuclear power for so-called strategic reasons. Coal is to be a sort of sop to the privatisers. Nuclear power is to be protected while coal power is not. Coal can be purchased in many countries at less than the cost of production. One can purchase in Columbia coal that has been mined by 10 or 11-year-old kids. One can purchase in South Africa coal that has been mined by slave labour. Coal is sold by Poland at a price that is below the cost of production. It is the price that counts, however, for British indigenous coal. We are prepared to give blatant preference to nuclear power, which means that we are prepared to sell the coal industry down the river. There is a strategic reason for maintaining the coal industry, for we have more coal in Britain than any other fossil fuel.
  This privatisation measure represents the Government's attempt to bury an energy policy for all time. It is a scandal. If we bury an energy policy, we tamper with the future of our kids. We should be planning the use of our energy resources. It is all very well to say that we have a number of energy resources available to us, but it cannot be said at the same time that they are wasting assets and should be burnt away.
  I predict that the Bill will lead to gas-fired power stations. In later years we shall probably say how foolish we were to take that course. Similarly, the Government's attitude to coal has been foolish. If we are serious about an energy policy, we should be pursuing energy conservation.
  696
  Will energy conservation or efficiency be pursued within the terms of the Bill? I know that the Secretary of State has a dream for the Department of Energy. He wants it stripped of all its powers. If that happens, it will be merely a Government advertising agency. It will not be concerned with policy, the giving of directions or security of supply.
  The Bill will have a considerable effect on employment. I received information this morning from the Coalfield Communities Campaign, and I shall run through it quickly. The electricity supply industry employs about 550,000 people, and privatisation will place at risk at least 80,000 of those jobs by 1992. In the longer term, up to 165,000 will be at risk. Coal mining employment will be most severely hit. It is estimated that 51,500 jobs will be the cost of electricity supply industry privatisation. That is the hidden message that the Secretary of State does not want to reveal when he is arguing his case for privatisation.
  Two major concerns for the United Kingdom economy are the switch to foreign supplies for a privatised electricity supply industry and the threat to the current investment programme for new capacity. Both will make the balance of payments position even worse. There are 200,000 people who depend on electricity supply industry construction and purchasing. The ending of the current "buy British" policy will benefit foreign suppliers and hit United Kingdom equipment and materials firms. There will be a loss of United Kingdom expertise and capability in power station development and heavy electrical engineering. Large-scale coal imports are planned, which will severely hamper British Coal's rapid progress towards competitiveness and profitability. Premature pit closures will mean that the coal industry of the 1990s will have insufficient capacity to supply national demand.
  Although electricity supply industry privatisation will not be the sole cause of colliery closures, the deep-mine sector of British Coal will be hit especially. Over the past 30 years, the electricity supply industry has moved from being an important but not dominant customer for United Kingdom coal to being by far the most important. Other markets for coal have declined to such an extent that, in 1987–88, a total of 79 per cent. of British Coal's United Kingdom sales went to power stations.
  The joint understandings between the CEGB and British Coal during the 1980s have ensured reliable supplies of coal at prices which have taken into account depressed world-traded prices. Without long-term contracts for coal, such as the 10-year agreement which British Coal is now advocating, it is likely that many economic pits with good reserves will be closed because of future uncertainty.
  The impact on coalfield communities of electricity supply industry privatisation is much more severe than the loss of 51,500 British Coal jobs. Local economic multipliers—decline in local spending—and longer-term base multipliers will lead to at least another 50,000 job losses in service sector firms and local economies. These economies are among the most disadvantaged in the country and have yet to recover from the contraction of the coal industry that took place in the 1980s.
  That is the real prospectus. That is what is really being presented to us with the Bill's Second Reading. The Bill will lead to more unemployment and misery in coal communities. The Government intend the Bill to lead to more profit and increased prices for consumers. My view

  697
  is that when we come to examine the Bill and demonstrate its deficiencies, sanity will prevail. I believe that the House will reject the Bill and all that it stands for.
  6.39 pm
  Sir Ian Lloyd: If I were tempted to follow the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) down many of the interesting cul-de-sacs that he introduced to the House, I would probably not succeed in making my own speech. I shall deal only with one of his arguments, which was advanced also by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). Instead of merely saying that he hoped that an energy policy would unfold in future when a Socialist Government were in office, I hoped that the hon. Member for Sedgefield would give us some idea of what it would be. Over the past nine years, I have listened to an immense amount of evidence from every quarter and throughout the spectrum of opinion on energy. I have not yet heard of one cohesive, convincing and practical energy policy that could be applied to the United Kingdom. Tempting though an energy policy might be, that puts it where it belongs. It is very interesting, but it is very dangerous.
  Let me now turn to two or three points made by the hon. Member for Sedgefield. It was a pity that in an interesting if controversial speech he was eventually tempted rather too much by hyperbole and zeal. What a pity that he did not demonstrate with logic what he sought to demonstrate, instead of merely stating that this, that or the other was nonsense.
  I noticed with interest that the hon. Gentleman was impressed, as many hon. Members are from time to time, by what he described as technology-driven industries or situations. I am not very impressed by them. It could be said that the whole AGR programme in this country was technology-driven, and the same could be said of the steam-generating heavy water reactor. It could indeed be argued that the whole French PWR programme, which has landed Electricité de France with a total bill of £20,000 million, was a technology-driven project. It could be said of Concorde, and it could be said that joint European torus is and remains such a project, although it is a very exciting and probably important project that we should continue. The point is that, for every technology-driven project, which is usually a loss-maker, we require about 100 market-driven projects which make the profit to pay for it. Opposition Members tend to forget that.
  The hon. Member for Sedgefield also made a point based on international comparisons of energy costs. He will not be the first hon. Member—or, I suggest, the last—to have an intellectual arm or leg blown off after entering that minefield. It is prodigiously dangerous. An hon. Member can prove virtually anything he likes. The record of Select Committee inquiries over many years shows that this is a sphere that we, with all our advisers and expertise, enter with the greatest care because it is so difficult to draw firm and provable conclusions.
  My remarks are based not on the Select Committee report but on the Bill. Nevertheless, the report will doubtless continue to be quoted in the argument that has already started and will continue over the next few months, and for that we are grateful. We hope to raise the level of the debate, if we do not reduce its intensity.
  698
  The Committee has contributed on three fronts. The first is in the 919 pages of memoranda and evidence that we have received. The Committee has provided a wide variety of expert and committed opinion to be aired. If the expert opinion is not always committed, it could equally be said that the committed opinion is not always expert, but the whole spectrum of opinion is there. Secondly, we have contributed a considered, if controversial, judgment about the post-privatisation regime, which we formed in a fairly heated crucible of argument. That it was largely unanimous is a tribute to the Committee and to those who advised us. Thirdly, we have managed to stimulate a comprehensive, considered and valuable response from the Government, which has itself broadened the foundations of the debate and contributed valuable information. I am most grateful to all our witnesses, including Ministers, colleagues and staff, who have laboured with such exceptional diligence to produce these documents. If there are gaps in the analysis, it will not be for want of effort on their part.
  I should like to comment on a specific recommendation by the Committee. So impressed were we by the wide spectrum of views on the structure, philosophy and operation of various systems employed to regulate public utilities in the private sector throughout the world that we believed it would be immensely rewarding if a Special Standing Committee was established to consider the issue under Standing Order No. 91. I understand that that will be moved formally after Second Reading, but unfortunately there will be no argument then. There is no time for argument now, but I would not wish the House to have the impression that this was a mere afterthought. The procedure has been used five times since 1980, and in our judgment this is another occasion that fully justifies it.
  An American friend of mine who is eminent in the field suggested to me recently that all legislation should be followed by a statement setting out clearly and precisely the intended consequences of the policy enshrined in the Bill. It is worth speculating on what such an addendum might have contained had it been prepared for the Electricity Acts 1947 or 1957. I imagine that it would certainly have embraced the following aims, stating perhaps:
  "We will achieve greater economics of scale. We will improve the efficiency of production and distribution. We will lower the cost per unit of energy produced in real terms. We will achieve greater security of supply. We will integrate and enhance research and development throughout the industry. We will improve the ability of the nation to formulate and implement an improved national energy policy, particularly where this involves electricity."
  It is easy to assert without much fear of contradiction that most of those objectives have to an extent been achieved. What cannot be asserted is that they would not have been better or more quickly achieved by some alternative form of organisation. A strong impression that I formed from all our evidence was that, despite wide-ranging and detailed comparisons with other systems and countries, the proof remains elusive and tentative. If an attempt was made to provide a similar list of intended consequences of this Bill, it might run rather as follows:
  "We will inject effective competition throughout the structure of the industry"—
  this is the linchpin of the Government's case.
  "We will disaggregate the various parts of a monolithic industrial structure that has become cumbersome and sluggish"—
  for there is much evidence to support that.

  699
  "We will lower the real costs and prices per unit for all classes of consumer, yet again. We will maintain the nuclear option and if possible develop it. We will improve the responsiveness of the whole system to the consumer interest. We will maintain security of supply. We will transfer the citizen's stake in a major national asset from the notional ownership of the taxpayer-citizen to the direct ownership of the shareholder-consumer."
  Mr. Allan Rogers: The hon. Gentleman's argument is that there is no proof that certain criteria that need to be met could not be fulfilled under a different organisation. Will he cast his mind back to when the coal industry was in private hands and the Sankey commission—whose chairman, later Lord Justice Sankey, was certainly no raving Left winger—suggested that the coal industry was too important to the nation's security to be left in private hands, and that the profit motive was taking precedence over the country's interests? There is indeed proof that energy in private hands does not work in the way that the hon. Gentleman says that it will.
  Sir Ian Lloyd: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's argument. It could be said that, in view of the development of coal under national ownership since then, such assertions did not necessarily prove Lord Sankey's arguments.
  The list of intended consequences might continue thus:
  "We will extract the state from the need to consider and promote a national energy policy for electricity supply. We will reduce the Government's public sector borrowing requirement."
  I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be able in 10 years' time to say that most of those intended consequences have been achieved, but I am not entirely sure that he will have effectively maintained the nuclear option or extracted the state from its wide-ranging involvement in industry, let alone its obligation to think about and respond to the consequences of alternative energy policies.
  I say "in 10 years' time" because I think it important to stress that, such is the massive inertia inherent in this industry under any ownership, control or structure, that it will be at least 10 years before significant changes can or will emerge. The lead times are too long, the commitments too great and the energy supply systems too slow to respond for it to be otherwise. There will be many attempts to prove merit, but none in my judgment will be, or deserve to be, convincing.
  I count it as one of my greatest privileges that many years ago I sat at the feet of one of the great authorities on welfare economics, Professor A. C. Pigou. If his feet were generally clad in carpet slippers, his mind could only be compared with the Finisterre light, which can be seen for 43 miles on a clear night. Pigou's intellect cast a similar beam over the tormented and confused sea of political judgments. His analysis, which I re-examined only yesterday, remains valid nearly 60 years after it was produced. The House need not fear a long-distance lecture from me or Professor Pigou on welfare economics. I propose to burden the House with only one conclusion, which provides an appropriate preface to my own brief analysis of the Bill.
  The problem of the national economy is no longer to effect an instantaneous transformation from one scheme of production to another, but to maintain the best scheme permanently. That is a view that we could have emblazoned on the top of any Bill on energy. My analysis is directed towards an answer to that question. The essence
  700
  of this measure is not the transfer of ownership or control—important though that may be—but the unique disaggregation or disconnection which it brings about between the major components of the industry. It is significant that, among the 28 organisations on the privatisation list, about 23 have been sold as integrated organisations, one has been brought under private management and only two have been sold off with their component parts or companies. Electricity will be the third and it will completely overshadow all the rest in scale and consequences.
  It is clearly the Government's intention, which they have sought to justify by many arguments with and outside the Central Electricity Generating Board, that the replacement of an integrated control and command system by a loosely defined series of contracts between the parts is a worthwhile endeavour. That area caused the greatest disquiet to many witnesses and I share their apprehension that there is a high element of artificiality in the arrangements that no amount of careful legislative drafting can possibly reduce or eliminate. It can work and it might work, given good judgment, great imagination and good will. It is the sort of achievement that we so often seem to pull off rather well against all the odds. However, we would not be wise to underestimate the odds or minimise the unprecedented scale and complexity of the challenge. My verdict is that there will be many unforeseen consequences and I should not like to predict their character or their influence on the outcome.
  The Bill provides a well-structured and carefully organised slipway to launch the post-1990 electricity supply industry, but I am not sure that we know much about the shape, speed or efficiency of the ship. I have several fundamental reservations about the Bill. It makes an insufficient distinction between the procedures and consequences of privatisation and the procedures and consequences of liberalisation. I should expect to have the greatest difficulty in judging the contributions made towards any reduction in real costs by reorganisation and by the free access to the whole range of European equipment manufacturers in 1992. I should have even greater difficulty in judging the contribution made by an alteration in the energy production mix and the contribution made by free access to all international sources of fuel supply.
  One set of scales has not yet been invented. It is the set of scales in which one attempts to weigh the well-known merits of an integrated, public utility type of organisation—making due allowances for its disadvantages of inertia and manpower—with the merits of a disintegrated system of generators and an independent grid serving a dozen independent distributors. Such a judgment, as Professor Pigou would have advised, were he still alive, would impose an insuperable burden on the apparatus of economic logic and administrative prediction. I remain firmly convinced that only events and experience can indicate the philosophy and judgment that underline the Bill. I say that as a firm believer in the general merits of privatisation and the proven success of much that has gone before in the legislative calendar.
  I am also particularly concerned at the extent to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his successors will remain enmeshed in the affairs of the industry. I made a careful analysis of the Bill at the weekend and discovered that my right hon. Friend will be involved in detailed obligations in no fewer than 67

  701
  distinct and separate areas of the Bill. Although many may be merely formal, that is a considerable amount. His responsibilities under the clauses concerned with nuclear energy and the innocent-sounding "Miscellaneous" clause 87, seem to negate, if only in theory, one of the principal intended consequences, which I suggested earlier.
  I am reminded of the distinguished peer who received a questionnaire from an American sociologist asking whether his family had a suit of armour. He proposed to say no, but his secretary suggested that he should say that he had two—one on and one at the blacksmith's. My right hon. Friend may be shedding one set of responsibilities only to assume another, which is even more arduous. His second suit is at the wordsmith's.
  What emerges clearly is that, in numerous and significant areas of the industry, my right hon. Friend, embodying the state, is retaining, and will undoubtedly have to exercise, powers requiring him to formulate and apply what can only be described as a national energy policy for the electricity industry. That is clearly understood and accepted in the area of nuclear energy. I wonder whether the implications are so clearly understood outside that important, if contentious, area. Moreover, I accept the conclusions of Richard Bailey about the regulator. He said that that official
  "will be responsible for everything and anything not left to market forces."
  It is important, moreover, to emphasise that, for the nation as a whole, there will be no sudden or dramatic escape from the yoke—if that is the right word—that it has created for itself over the past few decades. The real costs, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has emphasised, are whether the industry is nuclear or non-nuclear and they will have to be borne, however they are distributed. Change can only take place on the margin—old systems abandoned and new systems introduced—but by its very nature, it will be slow and almost imperceptible. The costs of new excess capacity and of any new errors of technical judgment may be far more narrowly focused, but those that have already been made—and they are many—will be borne by much the same combination of consumer, taxpayer and shareholder. I refer, of course, to the great mass of shareholders in British industry, for whom energy costs are so significant.
  Regrettably, I do not expect the problems that have required Government intervention in the past in this industry to disappear permanently on vesting day. I fear that they will return to plague us in greater or lesser measure and because of the importance of energy, transferring that portfolio to the Department of Trade and Industry, as I understand has been mooted, would not only confer immense burdens on that Department, but would be a grave mistake.
  We are left with great hopes but with no proof. We hope that the overall quality of management will be improved and that the productivity of labour will increase more rapidly, as it has in other privatised industries. We hope that the freedom to purchase energy fuels in the world market will reduce net fuel costs per kilowatt generated and we hope that there will be a welcome surge of new initiatives, new methods and new technology, but we have no proof. I hope that those judgments are proved by events to be unduly pessimistic, but I would be failing in my duty if I did not give the House the benefit of the
  702
  frankest judgment that I could make, having enjoyed, over the best part of the past two years, the great privilege of listening to all the arguments on this subject.
  6.58 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Member for Havant (Sir. I. Lloyd), who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy, has told us that the Committee has hopes, but he also expressed a number of doubts. The Secretary of State made it clear that, essentially, the Bill is an enabling Bill, which gives him a great deal of power. We do not know what he will do with that power. No doubt, we shall learn some of the answers during the passage of the Bill, but we shall not learn many of them until privatisation takes place and is up and—we hope—running.
  The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) made an interesting and eloquent contribution. He was right to concentrate on the implications for charges, but in other ways, he missed an important opportunity to address the Government and the House on the real issue of how we deal with energy when we have grave concern for the environment and when there is a great deal of waste, especially in this country. That should be the central concern of any energy Bill brought before the House. Regrettably, however, the polarisation of ideologies precludes such an issue becoming dominant.
  In our view, the top priority should be to promote energy conservation. I have tried to elicit from the Secretary of State what role he might give to energy conservation as part of the contribution to the acquisition of non-fuel sources. In other words, will he accept the assertion that energy conservation constitutes a fuel source and that investment in it can reduce the requirements of a generator to buy in extra capacity from elsewhere? I regret to say that I was given no answer of which I could make any sense.
  The Government are cutting the budget of the energy efficiency office. Their declared objective is to reduce energy waste by 20 per cent. by 1990, yet the CEGB is planning for a net reduction through energy efficiency of only 4 per cent. by the end of the century. Clearly the objectives are only pious declarations; they are backed up by no real policy and by no practical ideas or measures.
  Our future planning should be based on the least cost principle. It has been clearly identified that where that principle is required, energy conservation ceases to be a side issue—a pious declaration and a few leaflets circulated to the customer—and becomes central to the thinking of the supply industry.
  As the Chairman of the Select Committee said, the problem is that the electricity supply industry is so conservative and so entrenched in its attitudes that the only way that it can respond to an actual or predicted rise in demand is to contract to build more generating capacity. It cannot apply its mind to the idea that money might be better invested using more efficiently the electricity that we have.
  American experience shows that where public utility commissions have imposed on energy suppliers a requirement to work towards energy conservation, they have done so because they have had no choice. In some cases, they have actually improved their profitability in the process. If the industry is left to its own devices, it says, "Let us build another power station. It cannot possibly be

  703
  sensible to discourage people from using energy or to encourage them to use it more efficiently." It has been proved, however, that every pound invested in saving energy and increasing energy efficiency using existing technology can achieve a return several times greater than the same pound invested in building new power stations. It is remarkable that we are not addressing ourselves to that principle.
  So far, the debate has been characterised largely by talk about capacity, over-capacity and under-capacity. Those are important issues, but energy conservation represents the best way of dealing wih the pressure in the environment and giving it space to develop a wide variety of options. A simple 10 per cent. reduction in electricity demand over the next 10 years would reduce the output of sulphur dioxide by 125,000 tonnes a year, of nitrogen oxides by 200,000 tonnes a year and carbon dioxide by 160,000 tonnes a year. That is well within the declared objectives and the technically achievable objective, yet we have not done it because we have no coherent framework in which to pursue such a policy.
  We could have space to deal directly with some of the other problems such as reducing sulphur emissions and stepping up research into more efficient ways of burning fossil fuels to reduce the amount of noxious fumes that they put out. We could find out the cost of, and the technical capacity for, decommissioning nuclear power stations to give us some idea of what is involved—to replace the guesstimates that are passed back and forth—and we could discover how to deal with the nuclear waste that we continue to produce. So far, the Bill has not addressed itself seriously to any of those things.
  Although we would give top priority to conservation and the environment, we accept that the industry needs restructuring. We accept that it has become over-centralised and monolithic. I am not sure that the colleagues of the Secretary of State will give him credit for pointing it out, but we acknowledge that the Government have learnt from the mistakes of previous privatisations—of gas and telecommunications. Having served on the Committee on the Gas Bill and sought to promote amendments that would have prevented the referral to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission I am tempted to say, "We told you so."
  It is a pity that the Secretary of State had to inherit a Bill that is not of his making and that he finds that the complaints that we suggested would be forthcoming have emerged and have been substantiated. I understand why the Secretary of State is anxious to avoid mistakes, but I find his proposals unconvincing and they certainly do not amount to a massive injection of real competition. I do not doubt that the proposals represent a major restructuring. but it is a moot point whether they are beneficial and will achieve their objective.
  There is no evidence that the Secretary of State's proposals will increase efficiency and in my view they will distort the market in a number of ways. I do not believe that a duopoly is a convincing mechanism for competition. It will create tension between the two generating boards and between the regional boards which have the option of buying in power and perhaps seeking to promote private generating agencies to build smaller power stations or contracting to build their own.
  Where does that leave big G and little G if they have inherited a massive overcapacity that they have to offload? The problem arises that the scope for effective competition
  704
  is limited and the potential for introducing new methods of generation on any significant scale is simply not there. Those who are anxious to achieve the promotion of benign renewable alternatives, which are getting to the point at which they are significant and could be competitive, given a little more investment in research and development, feel that the Bill is not creating a climate in which expansion is likely to be possible. They feel that quite the reverse is happening.
  Mr. Parkinson: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the existing system allowed a Government to embark without consultation on a AGR programme and to preside over a power station being built 16 years late and at several times the estimated cost? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will concede that, under the system that we propose, such matters will at least have to be opened up to debate, and Parliament will have to be consulted.
  Mr. Bruce: That problem has been evident all over the United States where people have invested and subsequently found that, because the regulatory mechanism is effective or because city investors are suspicious, power companies have gone broke and some power stations have not come on stream despite the best endeavours of the private sector. Neither mechanism will produce a guaranteed result.
  We could be moving towards dangerous uncertainty, which could lead either to substantial over-provision or to circumstances in which no one is willing to invest even though there is clearly a requirement to replace. We could then knock up against the margins and face a series of blackouts and power cuts. We do not know what direction we are moving in.
  The Bill proposes different mechanisms for privatisation—one for Scotland and one for England and Wales. Apparently, vertical integration is desirable for Scotland, but completely unacceptable for England and Wales. It is not for me to argue their relative merits, but it would help if Ministers could tell us how they justify the existence of two different mechanisms. I think that we know that they have chosen the easiest way of working matters out.
  The problem in Scotland is that there is such massive over-capacity—particularly in nuclear power stations—that it is impossible to imagine how alternative technologies can develop to any significant extent. That is a pity, because Scotland has great potential for developing wind and wave power and so on. There is also the potential to create employment within Scotland because the technology has been developed there. It is unfortunate that the Bill will reduce rather than increase the possibility of that application and of creating jobs that otherwise could exist.
  Mention has already been made of the nuclear tax. It is interesting to note that the Bill's provision for the liquidation, transfer or conversion of borrowings is different for Scotland. For England and Wales, it is £400 million to £600 million, but for Scottish boards it is £3,000 million. One can only assume that that difference has something to do with the substantial component of nuclear power stations built in Scotland and rather confirms the view of those critics, myself included, who argued that they should not all have been built in the first place.
  When one adds the £2·5 billion earmarked in the Bill for the nuclear power industry, in excess of £5 billion of taxpayers' money is being earmarked to cushion the risk of

  705
  the nuclear power industry. The Secretary of State may say, "But the consumers are already paying." The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is wrong; there is not one nuclear tax but two.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I bring to the attention of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) the fact that he has reached his 10-minute limit.
  Mr. James Wallace: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Standing Order No. 45A states that Mr. Speaker
  "will call Members either between six o'clock and ten minutes before eight o'clock or between seven o'clock and ten minutes before nine o'clock on Monday to Thursday sittings … to speak for not more than ten minutes."
  My hon. Friend was called at two minutes before 7 o'clock and therefore I submit that Standing Order No. 45A does not apply in this instance.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Gordon began his speech at two minutes before 7 o'clock. Therefore, he was on his feet at 7 o'clock, when the Standing Order came into effect.
  Mr. Wallace: With respect, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a question of when my hon. Friend was called. He was called before 7 o'clock, and my understanding of Standing Order No. 45A is that the rule should not apply to him.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The rule does apply to right hon. or hon. Members speaking before 7 o'clock, and that is the ruling I shall now apply. I have looked again at Standing Order No. 45A, and I have it on good authority that it applies to right hon. or hon. Members called shortly before 7 o'clock.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When the 10-minute speech rule was the subject of widespread discussion in the House after we received the recommendation of the Select Committee on Procedure, assurances were sought that the rule would not be used in such a way as to prevent, as the Procedure Committee described it, representatives of minority parties having substantial support from deploying a case when a major case is deployed by the two main parties.
  The fact that it would be possible to call a right hon. or hon. Member before the 10-minute speech rule came into effect, and for him then to be permitted to speak for a reasonable length of time, was one of the ways in which we assumed—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is not the responsibility of the Chair but that of right hon. or hon. Members who make long speeches before the rule comes into effect.
  Mr. Wallace: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I refer to the debate on short speeches on 13 July 1988, when the Leader of the House addressed that particular matter. Referring to an amendment that had been moved by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) to restrict all speeches after those made from the Government and Opposition Front Benches to 10 minutes, the right hon. Gentleman said of the rule:
  706
  "If it were to extend to all Back-Bench speeches, along the lines of the amendment … I would not be proposing it. I consider it essential that Back Benchers should continue to be able to speak for longer than 10 minutes, if they wish to do so, perhaps because they are spokesmen of other parties."—[Official Report, 13 July 1988; Vol. 137, c. 505.]
  That was what was indicated by the Leader of the House as being the intention. It was indicated also by the Chairman of the Procedure Committee—and Mr. Speaker, who was in the Chair, heard those remarks.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I understand the points that have been made by members of minority parties. Mr. Speaker and anyone else in the Chair is keen to safeguard the rights of minority parties. Nevertheless, I refer the hon. Gentleman to pages 423-424 of "Erskine May":
  "Speeches which began shortly before 7 pm must not continue for more than ten minutes after 7 pm."
  I have applied the rule. To err is human, but "Erskine May" is divine.
  Mr. Beith: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have made the point that I am attempting to safeguard the speeches of Back Benchers and the rights of minority parties. Time has already been taken up, but, as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is a long-standing Member of the House, I shall take his further point of order.
  Mr. Beith: I suspect that the edition of "Erskine May" from which you, Madam Deputy Speaker, quoted was written, edited, printed and published before Standing Order No. 45A appeared in its present form in July of this year. When in doubt, a Standing Order should surely prevail over "Erskine May", and Standing Order No. 54A states:
  "he will call Members either between six o'clock and ten minutes before eight o'clock or between seven o'clock and ten minutes before nine o'clock … to speak for not more than ten minutes."
  You, Madam Deputy Speaker, did not call my hon. Friend between 7 o'clock and 10 o'clock. You called him before 7 o'clock, without any such limitation being placed upon him.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is right, in that the permanent Standing Order to which he refers came into operation after that appeared in "Erskine May". I believe that this is the first occasion on which that point has been raised since the Standing Order came in, and I shall take it up with Mr. Speaker. I give the hon. Gentleman my assurance that I shall do so at the earliest opportunity.
  Mr. Wallace: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I accept your ruling, but raising the matter with Mr. Speaker does not alter the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) has been interrupted in mid-flow, and it does not guarantee that our official spokesman will have an opportunity properly to deploy the case—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There will be two days of debate on this Bill. I shall do my utmost, as will Mr. Speaker, to safeguard the rights of minority parties. That is the role of the Chair. I shall discuss the point in question with Mr. Speaker at the earliest opportunity, to ensure

  707
  that minority parties are provided with proper opportunities to contribute to the debate. We must now continue.
  7.16 pm
  Sir Trevor Skeet: I assume, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am allowed 10 minutes in which to speak from this moment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Yes, from this moment.
  Sir Trevor Skeet: I am much obliged to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  One lesson to be learned from the speech of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) was that if the Labour party were to resume power at a later date, they would renationalise the power industry by the time-honoured method of paying compensation, simply by adding to the national debt as they did in 1948—when the present Government are doing their best, through the Cabinet, to pay off part of the national debt, to the tune of £10 billion last year.
  As to charges, one can be very wrong. Today's domestic electricity prices are in real terms 8 per cent. lower than five years ago, and charges to industrial customers are 10 per cent. less. Householders in England and Wales pay 6·81p per kilowatt hour, which is less than in any other state in the Community, with the exception of Netherlands and Greece. In Italy, the charge is 9·94p. I am correcting a point made by the hon. Member for Sedgefield, when he argued that electricity prices will rise drastically. Thanks to a Conservative Government, prices have tended to go the other way.
  Mr. Morgan: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?
  Sir Trevor Skeet: I cannot give way in a 10-minute speech.
  The allocation of payments under clause 88 and schedule 12 totalling £2·5 billion are purely supplementary, if required for additional costs, and are not part of those items that are already added to the Bill. I thought that I should make that perfectly clear. On the other hand, if one carefully examines the coal industry, it will be seen that coal subsidies, grants, subsidies, social payments, capital write-offs and finance deficit payments total, in my estimation, about £9 billion cumulatively over the years. That is a very large sum. If one is to play one industry off against another, the real costs involved should first be clearly understood.
  The Government have incorporated nuclear generation into National Power. One suspects that there may be a more satisfactory method of coping with the problem, with less distortion of the market and less injury to the industry concerned.
  Nuclear generation should remain within a Crown company and be closely associated with, and even incorporate, British Nuclear Fuels plc, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and British Electricity International Ltd. In answer to several parliamentary questions that I put, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said that the Government have no intention of taking those out of public ownership. An additional precedent for that has been provided by the National Rivers Authority which, in the Water Bill, remains a state function.
  708
  The reasons for that are, first, that the fuel cycle, from power generation and reprocessing to the recycling of plutonium and uranium and waste disposal, would be contained in one company. The obligations contained in clause 88 and schedule 12—which comprise subsidies from the Revenue for nuclear storage, reprocessing, waste disposal and decommissioning—should be monitored and closely scrutinished within the state system. Secondly, civil liability for serious accidents will remain the responsibility of the Government since it is unassignable to the private sector.
  Thirdly, the economics of BNFL requires orders from the generator to underpin funding for expensive plant and equipment and that a sympathetic approach be maintained towards the potential of fast reactors for recycling reprocessed products and depleted uranium.
  Fourthly, with the eventual rundown of fossil fuels, either fusion or fission will be inevitable, which the Government should be able to direct as a long-term project, undisturbed by short-term considerations and the caprice of the market.
  Those reasons show that there are alternatives that the Government could adopt to get themselves off the limb where they are now placed, and where they find it embarrassing to have to go against market trends. An additional reason is that the broader basis of competition would be provided at once, with the emergence of at least three competing companies, plus the two in Scotland. This development would not have to await the fruits of a decade of growth in the private sector. A British nuclear company could become the "swing producer" to help to determine the amounts of surplus capacity needed to be retained to operate effectively a privatised system of electricity.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will bear in mind the fact that he could remedy at one stroke the major flaw in the Bill. Of course I support the Bill—it is the right way forward—but it could be improved. There is nothing in the Bill about reserve capacity. Which of the 12 supply companies are responsible for the national interest and assessment of current reserve capacity, since the obligation to supply has been moved away from the generators to the distributors? Will they be able to devise attractive incentives for the generators to build more plant without making industry, commerce and domestic consumers shoulder the risk? In an integrated system such as that in the United Kingdom, the present capacity is about 23 per cent. Privatisation requires a much broader margin of capacity to operate the system. The United States' capacity is 33 per cent., West Germany's is 50 per cent. and Japan's is 49 per cent.
  The trouble with contractual arrangements is that, although they may be litigated, they cannot guarantee instant response, especially if the lights are going out and industry's appetite for power remains unsated. New stations take about eight years to build. Although gas turbines are relatively cheaper to build, their running costs are high, and they may have have difficulty operating under the merit order system.
  While the price of oil is depressed by a world surplus and the price of coal is forced down by world prices at about £24 per tonne, it is doubtful whether it will be possible in the next two or three years to have any positive modifications, although the economy is expanding at a rate of between 3 and 4 per cent. a year. I stress that point. Perhaps the Government will link into the European grid with the establishment of a second line to the continent

  709
  and thus provide an essential reserve capacity, not in the United Kingdom but directly through further links with nuclear electricity in France. The Government should make their position prefectly clear during this debate.
  My time is rapidly coming to an end, so I conclude by saying that I support the Bill. Details of the grid and of research and development will have to be considered carefully in Committee, and I hope that the Secretary of State will agree to modify the Bill where grave weaknesses appear.
  7.25 pm
  Mr. Robert Hughes: The Secretary of State began with the astonishing assertion that the publicly owned electricity industry had failed to satisfy the ideals of its founders, but he produced not a shred of evidence in support of that. The contrary is the case. The publicly owned electricity industry has been an outstanding success. It has brought benefits to millions of people who, had they depended on private industry, would not have had an electricity supply. The problem with electricity, as with other nationalised industries, is that when the price was held down to protect the customer it was branded as inefficient. Equally, when prices were increased to generate capital, that was branded as inefficient.
  The Secretary of State's speech was one of the most unconvincing that I have heard in the introduction of such a major Bill. His only justification for the Bill was that private enterprise is good but public enterprise is bad. All that he wants to do is to sell the industry to his friends in the City. As Prince Philip might have said, there is little difference between a pimp and the Secretary of State. Each is interested only in selling a service, irrespective of the morality of the position or the effect on the individual.
  At least during this debate the Secretary of State has said little about the need to spread share ownership. He genuflected gently in that direction when he said that he hoped that some employees would buy shares. He is modest about the aims of share ownership because he knows what happened with other privatisations, including British Aerospace and Jaguar.
  Shortly after British Aerospace was floated in 1981, only one shareholder owned more than 1 million shares. By January 1982, a total of 13 shareholders had more than 1 million shares. The latest company accounts, to 31 December 1987, show that 40, or 0·04 per cent. of, shareholders own 41·78 per cent. of the shares. For the next bracket down, which is between 100,000 and 999,999 shares, 334, or 0·32 per cent. of, shareholders own 37·02 per cent. of the shares. Therefore, 374 people, or 0·36 per cent. of shareholders, own 78·8 per cent. of British Aerospace. How is that for concentration of ownership?
  When Jaguar was privatised, very few people had large shareholdings. Astonishingly, within six months of flotation the number of shareholders had halved. In May 1985, a total of 207 shareholders owned 76 per cent. of the shares. What is the position now? The number of shareholders has decreased to one third of the original number, with 187, or 0·44 per cent. of, shareholders owning 78·18 per cent. of the shares. Eighteen
  710
  shareholders own 51·42 per cent. of the shares, which is a controlling interest. How is that for a concentration of ownership?
  As for employee share ownership in Jaguar, although the employee share scheme has more than 3 million shares, that represents only 1·8 per cent. of all shares. Only 320 employees own 164,493 shares, which is 0·09 per cent. of the shareholding. How is that for concentration of share ownership? What price the employees in that industry having an influence on their destiny?
  The Secretary of State is anxious only to get rid of the shares. The problem is that there is no device in the Bill to stop big G taking over little G or little G taking over big G. There will be a predatory monopoly supplier that the Secretary of State believes will provide competition, but which I believe will be a paper-thin charade.
  I want to spend a couple of minutes talking about the problems of Dounreay atomic energy research establishment. The fast breeder research programme has been an outstanding success. The decision to cease that research was both precipitate and wrong in principle; it should be continued. Many other countries are continuing their research, notably Japan, and I suspect that, with its increasing potential and expenditure, within a decade we will be buying Japanese technology. The decision to cease funding research was first taken by Lord Marshall out of pique because he did not get his way on the future structure of the industry, and the Secretary of State then reacted out of equal pique because he did not want Lord Marshall to get away with that. Therefore, funds for research are not being made available.
  There is a severe unemployment problem in the area. I have never said that any industry must continue, despite the risk, but we will live to regret the rundown of Dounreay. The decision is disastrous for Caithness, whose people certainly cannot look to this Government for relief. Since the Government have been in office, there has been an end to regional policy, the disappearance of the pulp mill at Corpach and the disappearance of the aluminium smelter at Invergordon. The smelter might well have been saved if the electricity industry had given it a cheaper electricity price. The great fear is that, because future technological research in the fast breeder programme is being stripped away without proper consultation or discussion, Caithness will become the dumping ground for nuclear waste. That could be much more dangerous than the fast breeder technology research.
  I intervened in the Secretary of State's speech to ask about standing charges, and he said that they would continue. Standing charges are extremely regressive and bear much more heavily on the poor and the pensioners than on the well off. The Secretary of State dissembled when he spoke of second homes. He said, "Do we want to remove standing charges for people who have second homes?" To use the Prime Minister's expression, he was talking about the tiny, tiny little minority of people who own second homes. It would have been more equitable had the current standing charges been put into the general account and paid for by the customer, per unit of electricity consumed. That is by far the best way to deal with that.
  The Secretary of State is abandoning house insulation and conservation of energy. He said nothing about the costs to industries, especially those with large energy needs. I wish that I had time to go into detail about the

  711
  complaints of the paper industry, which is a heavy user of electricity. It believes that it has been unfairly penalised because a cheaper electricity price is not available.
  The Secretary of State did not justify his privatisation plans. Indeed, the game was given away by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), who said in an intervention that we should be worried about the privatisation of electricity. We are, because it means £20 billion going into the Conservative party kitty for the next general election. That is what privatisation is about. It will raise money to finance future tax cuts. It has nothing to do with rationale, sense or objectivity—it is purely a means to finance future tax cuts. How could we expect objectivity from this Government? The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have a curious relationship—headmistress and teacher's pet—which does not lead to objectivity. The tragedy is that the public will suffer.
  7.34 pm
  Mr. Michael Alison: I wish briefly to refer to a unique feature in my constituency that is relevant to this debate on the Electricity Bill. In my constituency is the largest and most productive single coalfield in western Europe, and sitting on top of that coalfield are two of the largest and most significant power stations in Britain, at Drax and at Eggborough.
  I warmly welcome the Bill because it will be advantageous both to consumers and to producers of electricity in my constituency. It stands to reason that the proposed new structure, with its injection of the ingredients of competition, will, to quote the White Paper
  "create downward pressure on generating costs, which last year accounted for some three-quarters of total operating costs."
  I cannot follow the argument of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who suggested that there was no prospect of competition under the Bill. The four separate new avenues of competition outlined in paragraph 41 of the White Paper speak for themselves. They all relate to the new distribution companies and it is significant that their predecessor companies, the area boards, warmly welcome the proposed changeover. They know that they will be let off the CEGB's leash and will enjoy a great deal more freedom. If that is the position while the industry is still nationalised, how much more will it be true under the new arrangements and I am leaving out the prospects of competition resulting from the fact that larger users can also buy electricity direct from generators. There will be more competition.
  It is nonsense for the hon. Member for Sedgefield to suggest that because there is a natural monopoly in the provision of electricity to the household consumer, the household consumer will not benefit from real competition in the generating sector. There is an analogy with the gas industry. Although there is a natural monopoly in the piping of gas into homes, the domestic consumer has benefited immeasurably from changes in the productive end of the gas industry. I believe that the same will happen in the electricity industry.
  I wish to cite a constituency example of how competition will help industrial users. I know of one substantial manufacturing company in Selby that cannot wait for Royal Assent because it has been denied a fair deal under the existing arrangements. It introduced a combined heat and power scheme, but before doing so took the trouble to contact its local electricity board to discover the
  712
  basis upon which the board would supply the input electricity for the scheme and then buy back the regenerated electricity. The company was told that the electricity board would pay for regenerated electricity at the rate of 80 per cent. of what it charged for supplying electricity to the combined heat and power scheme.
  Within two years of installation, the local electricity board moved the goal posts and, without warning or discussion, implemented what amounted to a 17 per cent. drop in the price that it was prepared to pay for the regenerated electricity from the scheme, but with no change in the charge for the input of electricity. That completely upended the computations and reasonable calculations made by the industrial company in exploring the scheme. That is one scenario that will not be repeated in the new competitive environment, when there will be the opportunity for companies to shop around and to buy electricity from different sources.
  Those who work on the supply side of the industry—especially the work force in the Selby coalfields—will not be disadvantaged. British Coal's productivity improvements have been quite staggering. There has been a 75 per cent. increase in productivity in the three and a half years since March 1985. It is difficult to imagine any supplier in the world being able to get coal to the Drax or Eggborough power stations more cheaply than the coal which is now being supplied on a merry-go-round basis in trains from Selby, a run of just a few miles. The daily run delivers 38,000 tonnes of coal to Drax alone.
  It was encouraging to hear Lord Marshall speak at the opening ceremony for the Drax B power station in May of this year. He referred to the local coal and electricity industries in Selby as "inextricably linked", and he prophesied a bright future for British Coal. If there is a continuation of the amazing productivity improvements that British Coal has been able to make, no foreign buyer or supplier will be able to challenge British Coal in supplying products to Drax and Eggborough.
  Will my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office confirm that the Bill effectively provides for the facility referred to in the White Paper—I referred to paragraph 42—under which large electricity users would be able to purchase electricity directly from generators and to move power to their sites via the national transmission network, under a system of common tariffs? In its briefing, the Chemical Industries Association Ltd. states that the Bill makes no reference to that matter. I would be glad to have some assurance that that facility is provided for in the Bill.
  Will my hon. Friend say something further about the cost implications of fitting FGD—the so-called fluid gas desulphurisation equipment—in power stations? Drax has recently started the costly procedure of installing FGD. It is a little difficult to see how, in future, it will be properly protected in terms of cost. The Department's briefing document stated that FGD costs will be taken into account in future and some sort of compensation made available, as it is likely to be obligatory for existing and new coal-fired power stations to install FGD equipment. There is an analogy with the cost implications of the non-fossil fuel requirement. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give us some assurance about FGD costs.
  On the basis of the underlying realities and facts in the industry and what is provided in the Bill, I warmly welcome the legislation on behalf of producers and consumers of electricity in my constituency.
  7.42 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I shall base my remarks purely and simply on the findings of the Energy Committee. It has been referred to several times in the debate. The Energy Committee reported in July of this year—much to the embarrassment of the Secretary of State. He did not want the Committee to take evidence and to report. Pressure was placed on Committee members not to do so. Unfortunately, Conservative Members on the Committee did not get their act together. One or two of them failed to turn up. It was decided to investigate and to take evidence. If that had not happened, we would not have had a Committee report to assist and guide us throughout the passage of the legislation on the privatisation of the electricity industry.
  It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). I shall refer to some of his remarks about Selby later.
  In general, the Committee's criticisms remain valid and largely unanswered. The Secretary of State's response to the report avoided most issues. The Committee's unanimous conclusion was that the privatisation timetable is much too tight. It stated:
  "If the Government is intent on introducing a Bill—or Bills—in November 1988, it is faced by a frightfully tight timetable. If at the same time it is discovering new problems, it runs the risk of producing ill-considered, spatchcock legislation. Electricity is too important an industry for the country to gamble that everything will come out right."
  That seems to be the Secretary of State's wish and intention. The Committee said:
  "There is still time for a fuller process of consultation, even if the result is to defer the privatisation legislation."
  The main criticism in the report is that sufficient time has not been allowed and that the White Paper and the Bill were ill-conceived. That opinion is shared by the electricity supply trade unions. Their evidence strongly supported the Committee's strictures on the proposed time scale. A longer time schedule for legislation would have had three clear advantages. First, it would have allowed the Department to consult widely with all interested parties on the details of the legislation, licences and regulatory regime. Secondly, it would have provided an opportunity for the establishment of the regulatory arrangements well before privatisation, as recommended by the Committee. Thirdly, it would have enabled the management of the proposed shadow companies and the new regulator to gain experience before privatisation.
  The Committee was privileged to listen to expert evidence from witnesses and to be guided by expertise. At no time was any hon. Member reluctant to support the contents of the report. The Committee stated:
  "The privatised structure is likely to remain for at least a generation … It must be right from the start. Nothing is served by the secrecy or haste in which the process of consultation has been conducted."
  The Committee was particularly critical of the proposed structure for generation, which it believes has been devised to accommodate the Government's preoccupation with sustaining nuclear generation. The trade unions share that view. The Committee formed no firm opinion on the effect on prices, and called on the Government to make a detailed assessment. It stated:
  "We have no evidence on which to reach any firm conclusion on one central issue: whether or not a privatised
  714
  ESI is likely in aggregate to have lower costs, and hence be able to offer its consumers lower prices, than would be the case if the industry remained in public ownership."
  The Committee clearly said that there is no evidence that the consumer would benefit from privatisation.
  The Committee was critical of the Government for promising lower prices but providing no evidence that that will be the case. It called on the Government to publish a detailed assessment of the factors that they believe will lead to lower prices. Several hon. Members have referred to that matter. I doubt whether any assurances will be forthcoming.
  Several hon. Members have referred to the problems of regulation, which the Select Committee examined in detail. It said:
  "The way the industry is regulated will affect competition, efficiency, prices and the validity of service for many years into the future. We believe that the regulator will need to be in place well in advance of privatisation to ensure that he is able to have some influence on the regulatory framework which he will be operating."
  I hope that the Secretary of State will at least give serious consideration to that recommendation which, once again, was supported by the electrical trade unions and other witnesses.
  The Committee quotes with approval the statement of John Lyons, general secretary of the Engineers and Managers Association and the Electrical Power Engineers Association, that the sort of detailed regulation which would offer the maximum direct protection to the customer is incompa-tible with the management freedom necessary for an efficient industry. The Committee generally comes down in favour of a much heavier style of regulation. The Committee expressed concern and failed to understand what was meant by light regulation compared with heavy regulation. We would have been in a much better position to make a judgment if what that meant had been spelt out.
  The Committee is strongly critical of the Government's proposed nuclear quota:
  "We also find it difficult to reconcile the 20 per cent. non-fossil fuel requirement—effectively a bunkering of the nuclear industry—with the best interests of consumers."
  The Committee is worried about the cost of nuclear power and believes that at commercial discount rates and realistic coal prices, private companies will be unlikely to invest in nuclear power. Power from that source will be more expensive than that from fossil-fuelled stations. That has been expressed repeatedly in the debate.
  I can well understand the right hon. Member for Selby being so enthusiastic about coal mining as the jewel of the coal mining industry is Selby coalfield, but I wonder whether he would have the same enthusiasm if he represented an area where mining has been wiped out. Some 11,000 jobs have been lost in my constituency and we are facing a great threat. No Conservative Member has ever denied that there will be job losses in the mining industry as a result of this privatisation. The average age in the industry is 35, so young men will lose jobs without the prospects of the attractive and generous redundancy terms which were previously enjoyed. Since 1984 no jobs have been replaced. Therefore, would the right hon. Gentleman be so enthusiastic if he represented such an area?
  7.53 pm
  Mr. John Hannam: For those of us who have been involved in energy matters over the years, today's debate represents a major step in the Government's progress towards the restoration of a truly free enterprise society. As a strong believer in private ownership, as distinct from state control, I apply the simple principle that it is a question of justifying not why an industry should be privatised, but why it should remain in state ownership. If strong reasons can be given for an industry having to be owned by Government, so be it, but on the record of the nationalised industries, with their higher than average job losses and price increases, especially under Labour Governments, I see no doctinaire ideology in our wanting to put them back into the more competitive and efficient private sector.
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hannam: I cannot, because of the time factor.
  For those reasons I welcome my right hon. Friend's determination to take our electricity supply industry into private ownership, albeit with an extensive regulatory regime for the obvious reasons of safety, consumer protection and security of supply of a vital commodity.
  The electricity supply industry operated without real competition for 30 years and that resulted in huge distortions of supply capacity, as we swung from cut-offs in the 1950s and 1960s to vast over-capacity in the 1970s and 1980s. From being a pioneer in nuclear technology, we have swapped and changed our reactor systems so often that overseas markets have been lost and our generating costs have suffered. All that time, the accent was on size with bigger and bigger generating stations, operating at less and less energy efficiency and running counter to all the environmental and conservation requirements of today's world.
  The radical restructuring of electricity will lead our energy industries down a new path towards greater diversity of supply, better consumer involvement and, most important, a downward pressure on prices. This is where the Labour party is getting it all wrong. With the changeover on the Front Bench from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), pessimism has been replaced by innumeracy. The hon. Gentleman's forecast of a 25 per cent. rise in electricity prices is wholly irresponsible and based on misconceptions.
  First, the hon. Gentleman's assumption that the non-fossil fuel levy represents a new charge on the consumer to cover future nuclear power costs is wrong. Present prices include charges for nuclear power and future decommissioning, and with current cost accounting in the nationalised industries, that is precisely what the consumer is paying for.
  In his desire to scare the public, the hon. Gentleman also ignored the basic realities of competition which drives down costs. He fell into the old ideological Socialist trap of assuming that any increase in profits must come from increased prices. If he looks at British Telecom, he will see that it is making record profits, despite a decrease in telephone charges of 12 per cent. in real terms since privatisation. In any event, no Labour Member can talk
  716
  about price increases when, between 1974 and 1979, electricity prices rose by 180 per cent., or 30 per cent. above inflation.
  The factor that will reduce future costs is diversity of supply. For several years, there have been repeated complaints from area boards, industrial companies, independent electricity producers, energy efficiency and combined heat and power organisations that the huge monolithic supply industry was preventing more efficient electricity production. My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) and I have repeatedly brought these frustrations to the attention of the House, especially my hon. Friend, through his work on the Select Committee.
  The first official recognition of the energy efficiency case came with the Drax coal-fired power station which harnesses the waste heat for local tomato growing. That was the first occasion when a major power station has tried to use that excessive heat.
  Mr. Peter Rost: One per cent. of it.
  Mr. Hannam: One per cent. of it, as my hon. Friend says.
  Then the 1983 Act appeared to offer more scope for individual generation, but in reality the monopoly supplier has been more interested in large-scale stations, so smaller generators have not been allowed in on the act. Combined heat and power was completely neglected until recent years, but the new community heating schemes in Sheffield, Leicester, Birmingham, Newcastle and south London are a hopeful sign for the future. Nevertheless, we must remember that the original Government study on combined heat and power identified a further 34 urban areas where combined heat and power and community heating could be developed.
  It is not only in the context of getting 60 per cent. rather than 30 per cent. energy efficiency that we should develop these schemes. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in her "green" speech in September recognised the urgent need to reduce harmful emissions into the atmosphere and referred specifically to "energy production" and "fuel efficiency".
  The main ingredient in global warming is carbon dioxide and in a reply to a parliamentary question recently we were told that our present annual coal burn produces some 235 million tonnes of CO2. The use of new combined heat and power combined cycle coal plant would reduce that CO2 output by about 150,000 tonnes a year from a single installation, so that must be desirable. In the context of this Bill and my right hon. Friend's "least cost" basis for future investment, combined heat and power combined cycle schemes satisfy our requirements.
  I am more confident than ever before that these small 150 to 300 MW plants will flourish in the new era. However, it is in the context of the controversial 20 per cent. non-fossil option that CHP could have a role. I shall come to the nuclear aspects in a moment, but should like to ask for specific attention to be given to the use of coal and gas CHP schemes within that option.
  The Government have made it clear that not only nuclear electricity is included in the non-fossil category, and that they are including the various renewable and "energy from waste" technologies that displace fossil fuels. The Government's energy paper No. 53 identified inner-city CHP as able to displace a fossil fuel burn of 12 million tonnes of coal equivalent. I welcome the inclusion

  717
  of waste-tip electricity generation schemes in the Bill, but ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider whether other CHP fossil fuel replacement schemes could be encouraged within the 20 per cent. option.
  From my discussions with the area boards and representatives of the independent electricity producers, I am confident that a wide range of new generation will now come on to the market. If all goes well, those smaller, more efficient stations will contribute to a cleaner lower-cost system, but still fit into our balanced energy supply structure, using coal, gas and nuclear.
  We are debating the general principles of this privatisation Bill. There is no doubt that it is essentially an enabling Bill, with a great deal of detail yet to come in the regulatory and licence systems.
  The controversial element is obviously the nuclear non-fossil requirement, and there will be a continuing debate about whether, given a need to maintain our nuclear industry, the Bill contains the best method of doing so. I believe strongly that in the next century nuclear power will provide the bulk of the world's electricity. At present, 16 per cent. is provided by nuclear power, but, as the International Atomic Energy Agency pointed out in a recent survey of 100 nations ranging from Argentina to Zambia, the overall picture is of increasing electricity demand, shortage of fuels and worries about the environmental damage caused by fossil fuels.
  Belgium has reported that sulphur dioxide emissions were reduced by 60 per cent. per kilowatt hour between 1973 and 1983 because of nuclear power. Finland also reported a reduction in harmful emissions by using nuclear power. Kenya, Malaysia, Morocco, Pakistan, India, Poland and Spain—and most of the other 100 countries—are all planning peaceful nuclear power development.
  Here in the United Kingdom, due to the juxtaposition of falling coal prices and a comparatively high cost nuclear station programme—the advanced gas-cooled reactors—we are temporarily at a point where there is no clear cost advantage in nuclear power. However, on environmental and safety grounds, I believe that nuclear power is still well ahead. The Government are right to maintain the nuclear option for all the different reasons given. In my view, it will not be long before the so-called levy becomes a refund as the crossover occurs again when oil, gas and coal prices rise higher than nuclear prices.
  My right hon. Friend has shown great determination and bravery in his approach to this privatisation. There is still a lot of detail to come, but I congratulate him on his vision and support the Second Reading.
  8.2 pm
  Mr. Jack Thompson: Listening carefully to the Secretary of State's presentation of the Bill on its Second Reading today, I felt that he lacked conviction and commitment. It will be interesting tomorrow to see in cold print in Hansard the detail of his comments because I am sure that the public outside will see only the comments in the newspapers, and not the Secretary of State's full presentation.
  Up to this point the input from Conservative Members has not touched on one point. There has been severe criticism by the Secretary of State and other Conservative Members of the Central Electricity Generating Board, the
  718
  grid system, the distribution boards, and the industry's lack of efficiency and lethargic attitude. However, what has not been mentioned is that the Secretary of State and his predecessors for the past nine years could have influenced anything that happened in the electricity industry because it was state-owned and the direct responsibility of the Secretary of State for Energy.
  To understand fully the changes advocated in the Bill, which are designed to dismantle an efficient and integrated service, it is necessary to examine the reasons for the industry being taken into public ownership in the first place some 40 years ago and to relate those reasons to the position now. The policy of public ownership, which was pursued by all political parties at that time, is still valid in the 1980s and will be even more valid in the future.
  It cannot be claimed that the propositions enshrined in the Bill will take us back to Victorian times, although much of the legislation introduced by this Government has taken us back to Victorian times. However, electricity is somewhat different, because in Victorian times it was in its infancy. The Secretary of State's proposals lead me to believe that the industry will suffer from some of the problems that it faced in the mid-1920s when the Weir report set the pattern for our present complex integrated system.
  Faraday announced his discovery of electro-magnetic induction in 1831; after his subsequent development of more efficient generating sets and the invention of the incandescent lamp, the House passed the Electric Lighting Act 1882 which, incidentally, was framed in such a way that it protected the public against private monopoly—exactly the opposite of what is suggested now. The Bill also limited maximum prices and allowed for the purchase by local authorities of private companies established under the Act. That arrangement was to allow for a write-down value after 21 years. In the context of its time, that was a sensible suggestion. Hon. Members may not be aware that the sponsor of that Bill was Joseph Chamberlain, who was a more sensible and more enlightened Tory than those sponsoring this Bill, the proposals of which will create a new private monopoly and put profit before people.
  From the turn of this century, the industry flourished and expanded, mainly organised and funded by municipalities, the objective of which was to provide a public utility, geared to the benefit of their communities. It became more and more evident that large-scale integrated distribution systems were vital to the future of the industry. In the north-east of England, much pioneering work was done both on improving generating techniques, aided by Charles Parson and his turbines, and on the distribution of electricity on a standardised system. The north-east network was the biggest integrated power system in Europe at the time. It was the forerunner of what was to expand into the present grid system.
  That brings me to one of my main criticisms of the Bill. Responsibility for regulating and balancing distribution via the grid is to be taken from the generating side of the industry. I am sure that the House would be interested to learn the source of the advice given to the Secretary of State which encouraged him to include this preposterous proposition in his plans. I would hazard a guess that it was not engineers with any intimate knowledge of the grid. The grid has a crucial role in balancing load factors throughout the country, as well as in ensuring the most economic

  719
  regulation between production and consumption. It can perform its functions effectively only by being linked directly to the generating side of the industry.
  On 26 October, New Scientist announced:
  "The CEGB are already considering breaking up its research and development team into three parts, one to be allocated to big G, one to little G and the other to the grid system."
  That is a retrograde step. In such an industry, research and development must be integrated, just as the service itself must be integrated.
  I have experience as an electricial engineer. I also have the benefit of being a fellow of the Parliamentary Trust and visiting the North Western electricity board two or three years ago. It was an invaluable experience because I saw the industry from all sides. The people there were very helpful to me while I gained that experience, which reinforced my belief that breaking up the generating industry and taking control of the grid from the generators is absolute folly.
  The industry will suffer from a conglomeration of private companies controlling the grid; each demanding satisfaction for its regional monopoly and seeking improvements and expansion of the grid facility in its own area. That is a recipe for chaos and confusion. I am sure that the Bill will have a rough passage through Committee on the technical aspects of this proposal.
  There is another point that is not explained in the Bill, but was raised by the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), and that concerns the large consumer. If the large consumer has the opportunity to receive its supply directly from the generator, it must be fed through the grid system, which is owned by the distribution companies, and, somewhere along the line, that will be an added complication. If I was involved in the distribution companies, I would seek compensation for the use of the grid.
  Another criticism of the proposals is the lack of regulation and coal imports. In fact, there is positive encouragement to expand imports, which will not only cause economic problems for our coal industry, but, without regulation, will seriously damage the balance of payments which, on recent evidence, is in a difficult enough position.
  The rundown of the coal industry—significantly accelerating in the past two years—will continue. Social and economic effects of further closures will increase the hidden burden of job losses, redundancy payments and the social deprivation that follows, and the abandoning of huge coal reserves some of which will never be recoverable. For example, in my area the coal is under the North Sea. If those coal reserves are abandoned, there will be little chance of getting back to them again. There will be an increased dependency on foreign coal, which will increase in price as the power stations in Britain become more dependent on imports, so removing the short-term advantage of subsidised supplies. We are too dependent on coal produced by low-paid workers in near-slave conditions. The consumption of electricity produced, for instance, by burning South African coal, should weigh heavily on the conscience of the British consumer.
  Clause 88 and schedule 12 are diametrically opposed to Tory policies of a free market and is a distortion of fair and even competition. There is already considerable public discontent at the expansion of nuclear plant; the public perception of the conduct of the Sizewell inquiry did not
  720
  enhance the case for further nuclear expansion. That is evidenced, too, in the strong opposition at the Hinkley Point inquiry.
  There is a campaign in the north-east opposing the building of a PWR in the constituency of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—my parliamentary neighbour. Although he and I are from different political parties, we have campaigned during the past 10 years on the platform that a reasoned alternative to a nuclear power station or PWR would be a coal-fired station which could be run economically. However, that alternative will be distorted by the propositions in the Bill.
  Of course, at that time the opposition to the nuclear power station at Druridge bay was supported by the Tory candidates in the 1983 election. They stood there on the sand dunes and said, "We do not want a nuclear power station here." That may have been because they were candidates in the election, and they may have changed their views by now. I shall watch carefully to see whether one of them who is now a Member of the House makes a contribution to the debate. Many hon. Members, although they were supporters of the nuclear industry, see no justice in clause 88.
  The Secretary of State and the Government are so obsessed with nuclear power and attempts to destroy the mining industry that the clause distorts the future of power generation. It is nothing more than a subsidy for nuclear power. It is a facility which is not offered on the same scale to the coal mining industry. I shall be interested to see whether the Secretary of State, when discussing the proposals for the privatisation of the coal industry, will talk of a coal tax in the same way as he has talked of a nuclear tax.
  The industry would have been in a far healthier shape than it has been in the past few years, and the best thing to do with the industry is to leave it alone—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but, to be fair to other hon. Members, it must now be his last sentence.
  Mr. Thompson: I shall take note of that.
  I shall just make a little recommendation to the Secretary of State. I recommend that over Christmas he reads two books, both by the same author, Lesley Hannah, "Electricity before Nationalisation", a study up to 1948 and "Engineers, Managers and Politicians", a study of the electrical industry up until 1979. He will find them both enlightening and useful.
  8.14 pm
  Mr. Peter Rost: The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who opened on behalf of the Opposition with an elegant but badly researched speech, challenged the Government to say what benefits would come from privatisation. I have some news for the House—certainly not for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, because I am sure he will know it already. We have evidence that there is already pressure for downward prices from the new independent producers and from industry proposing to generate its own.
  I have some difficulty in spelling out the details of that, because I must declare an interest as a consultant to the Major Energy Users Council, many of whose members are large industrial firms, which are fed up with uncompetitive electricity prices and the monopoly abuse, and are only too

  721
  anxious to generate more of their own electricity. After all. we are bottom of the European league in industry producing its own processed heat and electricity, because of the abuse of the CEGB monopoly. I have difficulty, too, because I must declare an interest as an adviser to independent electricity producers interested in proving what they have not been allowed to prove before, which is that there are cheaper ways of generating electricity from which the consumer can benefit.
  All I may tell the House, without disclosing what is obviously still sensitive commercial information on contracts which are in the process of being negotiated, is about a number of projects which have already been referred to in the debate, especially schemes of district heating and combined heat and power at Leicester, the gas turbine project at Corby, the district heating scheme that is going ahead in Sheffield, the Thameside scheme and many others. The price at which they are offering their electricity to area boards is between 2·5p and 2·9p per kilowat hour. That compares with more than 3p per kilowatt hour, which the CEGB presently charges area boards. Therefore, there is evidence that the new producers can make a profit and offer electricity to area boards at lower prices than the area boards must now buy it from their monopoly producer, the CEGB.
  The estimates of how much of that electricity can come forward in time for privatisation vary, of course. However, they will be fairly limited, because privatisation is only two years away. Only those schemes already under production will be able to sign up for contracts on vesting day. It is estimated that the potential during the next five years is probably nearly 10,000 MW of capacity. A lot of that will come from industry wishing to put up its own plant, from city consortia developing combined heat and power district heating, and from new dependent producers putting up power stations, using the new technology which the CEGB has preferred to ignore.
  Of course, some of that technology will be combined cycle gas turbine and some of it will be the new generation of smaller coal-fired power stations, using the fluidised bed technology which, incidentally, is going ahead in the east midlands in partnership with British Coal to produce cheaper electricity than the large, conventional, traditional coal-fired power stations, as well as producing far less pollution.
  The other technology, which the CEGB has again preferred to ignore, is the use of municipal refuse as a fuel. That is the cheapest fuel and it is a clean burn technology. If the Swedes can do it in the centres of their cities, we can certainly do it with our pollution. It produces cheaper electricity, of course, where the heat is also marketed. The private sector is going ahead with such technology.
  The evidence already exists. I can prove it and I have it on paper, but, unfortunately, it is difficult for me to show it because it is still commercially sensitive. Area boards are shopping around and at the moment they are negotiating contracts for cheaper electricity than that which they presently must buy from the CEGB. One cannot have more proof than that. Competition will put pressure on prices.
  Unfortunately, things cannot happen overnight because most of the existing capacity is still with the CEGB. Area boards also have an obligation to supply, so
  722
  they must sign the contracts. If my right hon. Friend wants competition to develop further, I urge him to allow area boards to sign short-term contracts. They are anxious to do so, but, of course, the successor CEGB companies want to sign long-term contracts.
  Area boards are aware that, within four or five years, much more privately produced electricity will be offered to them at a cheaper price than that at which they will have to buy from the successor companies of the CEGB. If the new capacity are cheaper electricity and not to be squeezed out and pre-empted by the successor CEGB companies, it is most important that short-term contracts are encouraged.
  If my right hon. Friend genuinely wants to encourage competition, he must ensure that the redundant power station sites that the CEGB has been hoarding for years and has tried to develop rather than allow private enterprise to refurbish them for lower cost electricity production, are sold to the private sector if the successor CEGB companies are not prepared to develop them. There will be a problem about obtaining planning permission for new power stations even if they are the small type that are likely to be built. Therefore, the available sites that are presently held by the CEGB must be redeveloped by private enterprise if the CEGB successor companies are not prepared to refurbish them to enable more efficient electricity production. Those sites must be auctioned in some way so that the new independent producers who are anxious to get going will at least have some sites on which to do so.
  I wholeheartedly support the excellent comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam). We could have cheaper electricity, combined with heat production which would also provide cheaper heat for our communities, if the CEGB monopoly had not rejected that offer. The arguments in favour of the city district heating and industrial co-generation have been recognised and developed within the rest of Europe, where some 3,000 towns and cities have cheap heat and cheaper electricity as a result of the two processes working together. The environmental advantages are, of course, enormous because it saves fossil-fuel burning if one can obtain 80 per cent. efficiency out of the fuel burn rather than the present level of 35 per cent. derived from our coal-fired power stations. They generate electricity only and throw out the other two thirds of the fuel in the form of cooling water.
  If the arguments in favour of combined heat and power production was environmental alone, I might have second thoughts, but such production is also competitive. The estimated cost of electricity produced in co-generation or combined with heat production is lower than that of electricity produced from coal-fired power stations. Therefore, on the grounds of energy efficiency and the environment, I would strongly urge my right hon. Friend to consider seriously allowing the combined heat and power option to be included in the non-fossil fuel category with nuclear and renewable sources of energy even if it does burn fossil fuels. That can be done because combined heat and power displaces fossil-fuel burn because of its increased efficiency. Therefore, it is justifiably a non-fossil fuel source because it displaces other fossil fuel that would otherwise have to be burnt.
  I welcome this long overdue restructuring of our industry leading to privatisation. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a courageous proposal and on a radical policy.
  8.24 pm
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: One of the reasons why the Labour party opposes privatisation of electricity is that it will lead to higher prices, and that is what most consumers fear.
  Comment has already been made about prices. It should be noted that, between 1982 and 1987, electricity prices fell by 19 per cent. in real terms. Since the privatisation of the industry has been mooted, we have already had an increase of between 8 and 9 per cent. and a further 6 per cent. increase is on the way. Once the industry is privatised, shareholders will want their dividend, and in the future we will also be faced with indeterminate nuclear bills to pay. It strikes me that a minimum estimate of the cost of privatisation to the consumer in terms of price increases is 20 per cent.
  The Labour party is also opposed to the privatisation because there will be no competition and therefore no help to the consumer. I also doubt whether there will be much competition within the generating end of the industry. The Bill has nothing to do with competition.
  My main argument against the privatisation is the double standards that the Government have adopted in their treatment of coal as opposed to nuclear power. The coal industry is being exposed to the harsh realities of the international market, but the nuclear industry is essentially protected from them.
  In the past four years in south Wales, 18 of the 29 coal mines have disappeared—now there are just 11. Two weeks ago it was announced that Cynheidre colliery, just outside my constituency, would be closed. I am delighted that the miners have decided to fight that closure and to take that case to review. The size of the losses that have been incurred by that colliery and by Marine colliery in south Wales are small in comparison to the subsidies given to the coal industries of France, Germany and Belgium.
  It is a terrible contradiction that, as we approach 1992 and the single European market, which should create fair competition for energy resources, our coal industry is treated in a completely different way from that in France, Germany and mainland Europe. If Cynheidre was situated anywhere on mainland Europe there would have been no question of its closure because it would be judged a highly successful coal mine. The Government, however, believe in closing anything that is slightly uneconomic in the coal industry, even if loss has been incurred over a short time.
  Privatisation of electricity will also allow increased imports of coal. It is obvious that the world price of coal moves up and down as does the value of the pound. If interest rates are to be at 13 per cent., it is clear that we will have an over-valued pound, which will make imported coal temporarily cheaper. We all know, however, that just around the corner, the value of the pound will drop. When that happens, cheap coal imports will disappear. If we were substantially dependent on the world market for the supply of our coal, prices would soon escalate because that market is so small. The importation of coal is the wrong way to plan for our long-term energy supply.
  British Coal can offer long-term supply contracts. Over the next 10 years, it will hold its price to the retail prices index. What other industry in Britain could offer such a contract? British Coal offers us security of supply, at an economic price, within a long-term deal. It is now conceded that, compared with coal-produced electricity, nuclear electricity is uneconomic.
  724
  My first concern is with safety. Even before Chernobyl, the public realised that nuclear power stations could go out of control. The nuclear industry used to say that that happened once every million years. There are about 300 reactors worldwide, most of which have been in operation for only 10 or 20 years, yet there have been two major incidents, at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. That weighs heavily in the public's mind.
  There is a fear that, in privatising the nuclear industry, safety standards will be compromised. The Magnox reactors are reaching the end of their lives. In my part of the world, there is anxiety about the safety of the Trawsfynydd nuclear power station, which is 25 years old. Bits of metal dropped into the reactors's coolant circuits, but a test was postponed. When we hear such news, it leads to worries about these power stations remaining in the public sector, but with privatisation those worries will be greatly increased.
  If there is an accident at one of our nuclear power stations, the owners—the new private utilities—will be liable for only £20 million. Chernobyl has cost £20 billion so far. The Government will be left picking up the tab should anything go wrong here. The nuclear industry is a lame duck. The AGR programme is a disaster financially. Dungeness provided only a 1 per cent. load factor last year, 22 years after construction. Hinkley Point is the only reactor acting properly—the performance of the other three is questionable. We are abandoning the AGR technology. The Government have decided to have the world's largest pressurised water reactor, yet generally countries are moving away from the nuclear industry. In privatising electricity, a £6 billion bill will be passed on because of the Government's dogma about nuclear power.
  We have no idea of decommissioning costs. Unfortunately, when the nuclear reactors were designed, the authorities did not plan how to take them apart. The amount of £300 million for Berkeley is no better than a guesstimate. It is not an accurate calculation. Many experts think that the cost will be many times that and may even be up to £2 billion per power station. The Government intend underwriting such costs, but the nuclear waste problem is unquantifiable. A recent report said that it would cost about £4 billion to get rid of high-level waste. When we do not know what the technologies will be, we cannot accurately estimate the costs.
  The Government have virtually surrendered the case on nuclear economics. Over the past 40 years, nuclear electricity has never been economic. It amounts to a nuclear tax. If the Government legislate for a minimum of 20 per cent. of non-fossil fuel components, they will leave big bills for the public. Nuclear power should be phased out.
  I oppose the Bill, first, on the ground of higher prices. Secondly, there is no question but that this is an anti-coal Bill. It will saddle the public with a nuclear industry that they do not want.
  8.34 pm
  Dr. Michael Clark: It is interesting that the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) thinks that this is an anti-coal Bill. In some respects, the nuclear industry does not come out of it too well either. I welcome the Bill in principle and agree with many of its details. I wish it a speedy and safe passage to Royal Assent.

  725
  The nuclear industry is important because fossil fuels are premium fuels and finite. The nuclear industry is the generating industry for the future. Our great-grandchildren will rely upon it. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we need the nuclear industry for diversification. It is a stepping stone to the technology of the future—the fast breeder and fusion. The faster breeder at Dounreay is to close in five years. I deplore that, because some of that plant's technology will die with it. It is a shame that we shall lose that facility.
  I hope that the Government will agree to give wholehearted and fulsome support to the European project that follows JET, so that fusion becomes the "great white hope" for electricity generation in the future. The nuclear content of generation is important for those many excellent British engineering contractors that provide so many jobs and have project teams with great expertise. It would be a shame if they were disbanded.
  Recently, the nuclear industry has been challenged on prices and costs. In most economic assessments carried out by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the cost benefit of the nuclear industry has been shown to be doubtful—generally, it is agreed, because of rising costs in the industry associated with commissioning delays, retrospective fitting of safety equipment and poor performance of several nuclear power stations.
  There is cheap domestic coal, cheap world coal and cheap oil and gas, although I do not expect that any of the three will stay cheap for long. If the subsidy were taken from coal, the price would increase immediately. The CEGB has confirmed that, with higher interest rates, and particulary with higher rates of return on investment, the coal industry is favoured for generation over the nuclear industry. That is probably because a nuclear power station is more expensive to build than a coal power station. The nuclear power station gets its benefit from cheaper fuel costs. If a greater rate of return is demanded, there will be a disadvantage to the nuclear industry, and we should tend to build more coal than nuclear power stations.
  Independent witnesses who gave evidence to the Select Committee on Energy—on which I have the honour and pleasure to serve—said that, because of "commercial discount rates"—they meant rates of return—and the low price of coal, it was unlikely that unsupported companies would build nuclear power stations.
  The Bill states that each distribution company in England and Wales should purchase a specified amount of electricity from non-fossil fuel sources. What will happen if that non-fossil fuel quota is substantially filled from Scotland and France, or there is a dramatic increase in the amount of hydro-electricity or geothermal electricity, or a major tidal scheme is brought into operation? When those forms of benign electricity generation are expanded, will there be a decline in nuclear capacity? If so, that will be a great shame and a great disadvantage.
  What will happen if there is substantial investment in building private nuclear power stations, despite my earlier comment about rate of return? If private nuclear power stations are built, does that mean that big G, National Power, can shut down some of its existing power stations without having to build more? Does it mean that it will be divested of its monoply of nuclear power and will thus tend
  726
  to dispose of its centre of excellence for the nuclear matters that it presently has? If that happens, it will be a great shame.
  It is suggested that the regulator might allow distribution companies that are obliged to purchase electricity from nuclear sources to pass on the costs of these obligatory purchases. It should not be allowed to do that. The regulator should be there to prevent the passing on of prices. The nuclear industry must be aware of the cost of generating electricity by nuclear means and must not be shielded by the passing on of costs to the consumer. If that happens, the present nuclear power stations will be cossetted, as is much of the coal industry. If we are not careful, it will mean that privately built nuclear power stations may earn excessive profits by operating a cost-plus policy. We must not allow such a policy.
  I shall now return to the closure of Magnox stations. When nuclear stations close, how can we be sure that they will be replaced? We know that all the distribution companies will be obliged to buy electricity generated by nuclear power stations. Will there be an obligation to build a power station to match every one that is shut down? I hope that there is, because otherwise we shall see a decline in the nuclear generating industry. The Secretary of State dealt with decommissioning costs. Either the cost falls on big G, National Power, in which case it will depress the selling price when that company comes to the market, or the Government will pick up the bill. The Secretary of State said that all costs will be borne by the private sector unless there is exceptional or retrospective legislation, in which case the Government will consider whether to help with the cost of decommissioning.
  Finally, I should like to go through a quick checklist of items that point to the existence of a case for all nuclear power stations being in one separate company. Whether that company is Government-controlled or private, with the Government having a golden share, can be debated. There is a case for one separate company for the following reasons.
  The first is in order to ensure that a percentage of nuclear electricity is purchased by the distribution companies. Secondly, it would guarantee that nuclear-generated electricity is available for purchase. Thirdly, it would undertake the decommissioning and assume its cost and make sure that it is done safely and properly. Fourthly, it would prevent nuclear issues from eroding the selling price of National Power when it comes to the market and prevent the erosion of investors' dividends.
  Fifthly, we need to retain a centre of nuclear excellence that is undiluted by the company that owns the nuclear power stations being involved in other forms of generation. That would also enhance the safety aspects of nuclear power. Sixthly, we need to concentrate research and development for the benefit of the nuclear industry, for the scientific training of staff and to ensure Britain's future in the forefront of physics, engineering and chemistry. Seventhly, we need to prevent the true cost of the nuclear industry being concealed. Finally, we need to ensure that public confidence in nuclear electricity continues to develop in the way that it is developing.
  Nuclear generation is extremely important for the future of Britain. It is also important that the legislation gets it right, and I hope that the points that I have raised in the short time available to me will be taken carefully into account by the Secretary of State and his Ministers.
  8.43 pm
  Mr. Thomas McAvoy: Since the war, the Conservative party has peddled the line that the Labour party is rigid and dogmatic and unable to comprehend the complex nature of modern society in terms other than simply nationalising everything in sight. It has portrayed us as pursuing nationalisation pure and simple because we regard nationalisation as the only model by which we can manage industry and services in modern Britain. These accusations are nothing but dogmatic assertions and reflect nothing of the developing nature of our approach to the issues of how to run giant enterprises for the benefit of the public without allowing them to become remote.
  As a Co-operative Member, I have been particularly pleased at the continuing interest of the Labour party in developing an approach to industry and commerce based on the co-operative model. The principles of co-operation are an important part of the wide-ranging and flexible approach to how Labour is prepared to run the economy.
  In his speech, the Secretary of State directed a sneering remark at the Co-operative Movement. Apart from the fact that the right hon. Gentleman should be the last person to sneer at anyone, he obviously needs reminding of the dramatic recovery in the trading position of the Co-operative Movement. The Bill contains nothing less than the dogma that says that putting industries and services into the private sector will automatically result in a better-run industry that will provide a better service for the public. I have never taken the view that one type of nationalisation or public ownership is the ultimate answer, but what we are now hearing is the parrot cry of the Conservative party, that private is best.
  The Opposition maintain that unfettered private enterprise without public accountability has been responsible for untold misery. The pursuit of profit alone results in industry being run to the detriment of the overwhelming majority of our people. Of course, if privatisation were indeed a successful model, we would need to look at it. Let us look at it and see how the public are being ripped off by the throwaway terms of privatisation. A successful flotation is likely to require either a significant writing down of debts or an increase in charges to consumers.
  The first course of action would imply that private investors would gain control of public assets at less than their book cost. Moreover, in the South of Scotland electricity board case, £17 million of these assets have been directly paid for by consumers through their electricity bills. The balance has been funded through borrowing, which again has been serviced by charges to consumers. Since, therefore, there is a direct relationship between the board's existing capital structure and its present charges, the corollary of any debt write-off to asist privatisation is that, if the industry were retained in public ownership, such a write-off would permit a significant reduction in charges to consumers.
  The second course of action, increasing charges simply in order to increase the financial rate of return to facilitate privatisation, would clearly be against the interests of consumers. Both the process of privatisation itself and the structure proposed for the privatised industry appear to carry the risk of increased charges for consumers in Scotland. Experience of the gas and telecommunications
  728
  industries also suggest that there might be changes in the relative weight of charges borne by different categories of consumers following privatisation.
  The Government lay great stress on the opportunities created by privatisation for consumers and staff to obtain a stake in the electricity industry. However, the Government have not said what steps they propose to take to ensure that ownership of this key strategic industry remains in domestic hands, and doubts must remain about the attainability of this objective.
  Future ownership of the industry is also of relevance in assessing the electricity industry's role in wider energy policy. The Government justify the requirement for the English distribution companies to take a proportion of their power from non-fossil-fuelled generating capacity in terms of the need to ensure diversity of supply and to meet strategic objectives. However, the same tension between short-run considerations and long-term security of fuel supplies is also present in the fossil fuel sector, and is likely to be exacerbated if the electricity generating companies pass into the hands of shareholders and managements who are more concerned with maximising profits in the short run by purchasing fuel from the cheapest sources than with balancing immediate price advantage against wider economic interests and the safeguarding of the long-term availability of supplies.
  The recent dispute between the South of Scotland electricity board and British Coal is not an encouraging precedent, since it clearly shows how short-term pressures can conflict with other considerations and how a free market solution to sectoral interests may lead to inefficiencies and external diseconomies. Purchases of foreign coal may offer advantages in the short term to the electricity industry, but apart from the transitional costs resulting from the loss of domestic employment in the mining industry, such a policy could well impose immediate costs on others. For example, increased road haulage of coal from ports in the Strathclyde region to power stations in the east of Scotland would have a quantifiable effect in terms of the costs of extra road damage as well as consequences for other road users and for communities on the routes affected.
  In the longer term, by affecting the viability of the indigenous coal industry, such action may also leave final consumers unnecessarily exposed to fluctuations in exchange rates and in world energy markets, where there is a strong link between the prices at which coal and oil are traded internationally, and endanger the balance of fuel sourcing that the Government maintain they are seeking to preserve. The dogma from Government Members of "public bad, private good" is but a parrot cry. I have not heard a good case for privatisation tonight, and I doubt whether anybody else has heard one. I am opposed to the Bill.
  8.51 pm
  Mr. Michael Stern: The Bill addresses iself to the basic organisation of the electricity supply industry and the challenges that will face the industry for perhaps the next 100 years. Therefore, in looking at the Bill as a whole, it is important that we define the challenges against which we should measure it. We have heard a lot tonight about the challenges to the industry purely within the United Kingdom. There is the challenge of providing cheap electricity. I do not think that

  729
  any of my hon. Friends needs any more convincing that to build in any element of competition must, in the long run, provide cheaper electricity. The history of the past 100 years shows us that our civilisation is based largely on the provision of cheap power.
  However, we also have to look at the Bill to see whether it will encourage the provision of electricity by environmentally benign methods, and this point has become increasingly important recently. We can point straight away to the non-fossil fuel requirement in the Bill as a sign of the extent to which the Conservative party regards it as important that we should try to pump less poison gas into the atmosphere.
  When we measure the Bill against the challenges outside this place, its importance is increased—[Interruption.] If I can be heard over the continuous muttering and yowling from those seated on the Opposition Front Bench, I should point out that we must measure the Bill against the extent to which it will allow us to prevent the production of acid rain and permit us to slow down the warming effect of pumping ever-increasing amounts of hot and non-benign gases into the atmosphere.
  In addition—something that dwarfs every other consideration—we have to look at the extent to which the Bill provides an opportunity for the country to play its part in meeting not just our energy needs—those of a developed country with a high standard of living—but those of the developing world. [Interruption.] I am aware that those on the Opposition Front Bench are not interested in this, but I believe that the rest of the House is.
  In the free market economies of the world, the average per capita consumption of fuel is 4,452 kg of oil equivalent a year. In the command economies such as the USSR, the figure is almost identical—4,472 kg. However, fuel consumption, which determines the standard of living, is very different in the developing world. In Africa, the per capita consumption is 297 kg oil equivalent, which is less than one fifteenth of the power needs that we regard as normal. In Asia, the average is 387 kg—again, a minute percentage of what we regard as essential.
  We have to judge the Bill in terms of whether it will aid or hinder us in helping the developed world to meet this huge energy gap which has opened up between our civilised societies and the fuel-poor societies that occupy most of the rest of the world. The Opposition have come up with some nostrums on energy conservation, but energy conservation in the context of the problem that I have just described is like offering a diet sheet to a starving man.
  If we are to meet the energy needs of the developing world and to do so without poisoning the atmosphere, we have to make sure that, in organising our electricity industry, we provide the maximum opportunity for the development of benign, non-poisonous technologies, and get those on board as quickly as possible, so that we can make sure that the rest of the world does not have to go through the same process as we did. We went from wood burning, which is their principal source of energy, through the fossil fuel cycle, to arrive at nuclear and renewable technologies. If we force them to go through that same cycle, we shall end up with a poisoned globe. We cannot afford to see the limited supply of fossil fuels left in the world used in this way.
  730
  Will the Bill enable our industry to meet the challenges that I have outlined? The Bill will promote competition, and cheapness flows directly from competition. Perhaps more importantly, the Bill will free the industry from the dead hand that it has on it because the Government always have to have a say. The Bill will allow our power engineers and fuel and environmental scientists the opportunity to sell the known expertise of our industry to the rest of the world. [Laughter.]
  I am sure that the laughter from the Opposition Benches stems from the fact that Opposition Members do not represent constituencies which contain the more developed sections of the industry. In other words, they have no concept of what the industry is capable of achieving. My right hon. and hon. Friends know that the industry has been conspicuously unsuccessful, with its present organisation, in selling British technology to the rest of the world. It has not succeeded in selling the developments of that technology that have taken place here. The Bill will free our industry by providing an incentive to go out and sell. That is a profit motive, which is the best available incentive for the industry.
  The Bill will provide and demand new challenges for and of the industry, rather than allow it to relax within the same old mould in which we have allowed things to run for the past 40 years. As such, it deserves the support of the House.
  8.59 pm
  Mr. Eric Illsley: The proposals in the Bill are another example of the Government's obsession with selling industries into private hands. Once again, public interests will become secondary to the interests of the City and investors. We shall witness again a cheap-rate sell-off. The assets of the electricity supply industry will be sold at well below their value, at about £20 billion.
  The supply of electricity is vital to the nation. There are 22 million consumers, both private and within industry, including hospitals and schools. It should not be floated around the stock exchange to speculators and profiteers. Instead, it should be protected. Plans should be made for the future, and the industry should be kept in public ownership so that the United Kingdom can retain a safe and economic supply of electricity.
  The Bill will not increase competition. Instead, it will threaten security of supply. It will increase cost to the consumer through the nuclear tax and the nuclear levy. It seems that the taxpayer will have to bail out the nuclear industry, bearing in mind the proposed grants for decommissioning costs.
  The idea that the Bill will increase competition is misguided. The CEGB recently told the public inquiry into the Hinkley power station that a minimum of 6 GW of generation will be required over the next 10 years, but we have heard during the debate that that figure could be as high as 15 GW. If there is such a shortage of capacity, or shortfall, there can be no competition. Any new generator will merely be included within the existing capacity. Even if there is sufficient capacity to ensure competition, the Government will ensure that the nuclear industry is not exposed to it. The nuclear tax and nuclear levy will lead to funding for nuclear power stations, and that is unlikely to come from private investment.

  731
  The Government will give grants to generators to cover the cost of decommissioning. This will cosset the nuclear industry against its unpopularity and the likelihood that it will be shunned by investors who will not take on the inherent risks.
  We have heard this evening that there can be no competition at the point of consumption. Area boards cannot be duplicated. As members of the Select Committee on Energy heard, there cannot be two switches in every home. Where is the alleged competition going to come from? There will be only limited competition in generation. There will merely be a duopoly. We have heard of the mysterious 20 companies that are ready and willing to set up within the industry, but they have not yet been identified. We are told, however, that they are there. Even if that is so, there will still be only the duopoly at the outset. There will be the French link, but as we have seen in the past, that is likely to be cut off at any time by the French when their power requirements demand.
  The main benefit from competition should be choice for the consumer, but there is no choice in the Bill for the United Kingdom consumer. We have heard that there cannot be competition or choice at the point of consumption. The only benefit that could come from privatisation is lower prices. The Secretary of State has only recently increased prices, and we are likely to see further price increases as a result of the nuclear levy. As I have said, competition cannot be introduced, and it is unlikely that we shall enjoy lower prices.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Illsley: No, I shall not give way.
  It is apparent that the cost of nuclear power is far in excess of the cost of coal generation. In evidence to the Hinkley inquiry, the CEGB has admitted that nuclear power could be up to one and a half times as expensive as coal generation. With public sector rates of return of about 5 per cent., coal and nuclear power are neck and neck. Given a private sector rate of return of more than 8 per cent., or perhaps as much as 15 per cent., the balance swings dramatically in favour of coal.
  The argument for nuclear power is based on the need for diversity of fuels and security of supply. Both fuels can be achieved without privatisation. The cost of diversity in the form of the pressurised water reactor programme, according to the Council for the Protection of Rural England, would be £432 million a year, and that cost would be passed on to the consumer. The same study showed that simply increasing coal stocks by 2 million tonnes would give the same security of supply as investing in PWRs. The costs of nuclear energy are far in excess of those of coal generation, as the Government have more or less admitted by their support for private Bills to increase coal importing facilities, yet they will still not expose the nuclear industry to even limited competition.
  Many other costs will become apparent. For instance, large industrial customers will be able to contract directly with generators: some large industries, indeed, may themselves become generators. The successors to the area boards could lose out on large industrial contracts. Industrial customers account for some 52 per cent. of the total consumption on my area board, the Yorkshire electricity board. If it were to lose those customers, the adverse effect on the board would be huge. Twelve area
  732
  boards will become public energy suppliers. What of the risk of takeovers, reductions or foreign involvement? Again, the costs will be passed on to ordinary consumers.
  A major consideration will be the effect on the British coal industry. It is apparent that one of the Bill's sidelines is to kick the industry again. The Government have never lost an opportunity to try to restrict the industry as far as possible; now there will be further pressure on British Coal, further colliery closures and job losses, although British Coal has increased its productivity by some 70 per cent. over the past three years—a massive contribution.
  Only recently, British Coal's half-yearly account announced an operating profit of £119 million, yet at the same time its chairman announced further redundancies. Profits would have been higher had British Coal not been obliged to pay £700 million to the CEGB in price reductions based on the international coal price. Those reductions were forced on British Coal because world prices were artificially low and could not be sustained. Prices would have been increased had the CEGB delved into the international market.
  At present, the country cannot import enough coal to satisfy its total energy needs. The £700 million was a subsidy to the CEGB to ensure its profitability in the run-up to the Bill. The Government have taken every opportunity to attack and dismantle the British coal industry over the past 10 years, and they have not lost the opportunity provided by the Bill.
  The Select Committee on Energy recommended in its report, which has been referred to several times, that long-term coal contracts be placed before privatisation to ensure the stability of the British coal industry and to give some stability to the industry before privatisation. Those contracts should be for British coal, not for South African, Colombian, Australian or Korean coal. The coal-fired power stations that were proposed for Kingsnorth, West Burton and Fawley have been postponed because of the uncertainty that hangs over their future. The CEGB believes that there would be difficulty in selling output from those stations. The costs of nuclear power are ever increasing, because of decommissioning and construction costs, so there will be a long-term future for coal and it would be short-sighted of the Government to allow the British coal industry to be overtaken and run down in favour of foreign suppliers.
  On the Order Paper is a motion in the names of myself and four other hon. Members who were members of the Select Committee on Energy. Members of that Committee recommended in the report that the Bill should be referred to a Special Standing Committee. We have heard this evening that certain members of the Committee declined to put their names to that motion on the basis, perhaps, that they were already aware that the Department of Energy had expressed an opinion that it did not want the Bill to go before a Special Standing Committee. Those hon. Members did not presumably, want to be associated with a motion that went against the opinions of the Department. I ask hon. Members to support the motion when it comes before the House, thereby supporting the idea that this important Bill should go to a Special Standing Committee.
  9.12 pm
  Mr. Roger King: Twice during the course of the debate, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes)—who is not in his place at the moment, which I fully understand—has referred to an aside that I might have made about the fact that, in effect, I thought that the proceeds from the privatisation of an industry such as the electricity industry would be put to very good use by the Government. The Opposition have again illustrated their Luddite attitude towards the new economic regime that most of the world is entering and of which we, as a country, are one of the leaders. We cannot go back to 1947 when we had a war-ravaged economy, in which there was no personal wealth to be distributed in the community and no pension funds or bank balances with which people could invest choice in industry and commerce.
  Times have changed since then. We have a substantial amount of economic growth and we have large amounts of investment, which have been accrued by pension funds. We have the opportunity, therefore, for the state to divest itself of many of the undertakings that it has taken upon itself over the past 40 years. It is right and proper to consider electricity as a basis for further implementation of the programme.
  I am not surprised that the Opposition are concerned about the future because, with the announcement of further privatisation—in water and electricity—in the Gracious Speech, we are now well on the way to fulfilling our objective of handing back to the people and to the community the operation of all those industries that the state has decided that it could do better than anybody else, at some stage over the past 50 years or so.
  I welcome the Bill. It is innovative and imaginative and I am sure that it will prove to be effective. Those people who say that there are problems are the self-same people who said that we could not privatise the airports. They said that we could not make public companies out of municipal airports and that they would not work, they would go out of business and would be of no use to the community. We have seen what a success the British Airports Authority has been and what a success Manchester, Birmingham and Newcastle airports have been under the new regime. It is nonsense to suggest that privatisation and a more rigid discipline in running some of our ex-municipal assets cannot prove effective.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State played a leading part in presenting to Parliament the Bill that deregulated buses. Opposition Members argued, "No one else in the Western world has privatised their buses. It cannot and will not work for the community. No one will want to buy the services; there will be no investment and no competition." [HON. MEMBERS: "Claptrap."] It was the same old claptrap, as my hon. Friends so clearly say. Two years later, we know what nonsense that argument was, as bus deregulation has proved a substantial success. It has brought with it competition and new services at far less cost to the user. Yet according to the Opposition it could not be done.
  There is clearly an analogy between buses and electricity. Take the west midlands, for example. The deregulation of bus services has resulted in one prime operator—West Midlands Travel—retaining about 96 per cent. of the service. The new operators have not proved very successful in wresting routes away from the original
  734
  operator. Why is that? It is not because anyone has regulated the system or prohibited new operators from coming in but because the prime operator fears the possibility of competition. The law says that competition is allowed but competition has not shown itself because the original operator has become so efficient and effective in providing what the community wants that it has scared off new operators. I believe that the self-same policy will work for electricity.
  Mr. Salmond: Is not there a difference in entry costs between running a bus and building a power station?
  Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman will soon realise that costs will come down dramatically as a result of the opening up of the market for power station generation. As a result of privatisation, the industry, which has already committed itself to substantial power creation, will be able to sell its electricity on to the area boards, which it has not been able to do easily until now.
  The regime that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State proposes is eminently workable. Naturally, I should have preferred more of a break-up of some of the operating companies. For example, I should have liked Birmingham to have bought its power from Trent Valley Power and Light, providing an opportunity for the coal stations in the Trent valley to operate as one unit and to sell electricity to anyone who wanted it. I understand the principle of creating the little and big generators as two organisations, which will attract investment from private sector and trade union funds and, inevitably, from elsewhere in Europe. The system that my right hon. Friend proposes will work, and it will work well.
  Perhaps one question mark hangs over the proposals, in the form of the nuclear element. One way forward might have been for nuclear energy to be taken on one side, allowing the big and little generators to come to the market free from the nuclear legacy that they are to inherit. That is not to say that nuclear energy could not at some stage have come back into the market place under a reconstituted regime, and once its problems had been solved. From the investors' point of view, however, the little or big generator may not prove so exciting with the nuclear industry attached to it as it would without. Time will tell. Great strides are being made in the nuclear industry and it will account for a substantial part of energy creation in the future.
  The White Paper states that the object of privatisation is to eliminate a large amount of interference in day-to-day management over the running of the industry. I am a little unhappy that there appears to be more regulation than, ideally, I personally would like. However, I feel sure that, in Committee, my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department will spell out in detail just how little is that regulation. To succeed, we must encourage as much freedom of development as we can.
  My right hon. Friend said that the obligation to supply will remain. However, although clause 15(1) states:
  "a public electricity supplier shall, upon being required to do so by the owner or occupier of any premises",
  clause 16(2)(c) says that an exception is when
  "it is not reasonable in all the circumstances for him to be required to do so."
  We would welcome clarification of that point. It should be a right to be supplied with electricity in as many cases as possible, although I am sure that there are circumstances, even today, that make that impossible.

  735
  The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsey) mentioned direct contracts between generators and customers. There are opportunities for large car plants, blast furnace industries, smelting, aluminium and other foundry industries to do a deal with generators, which will be welcome. I applaud that proposal, but we must ensure that in taking such sales out of the area boards, arrangements for compensation are made so that the boards' remaining users will not be penalised too heavily by the removal of a substantial element of business.
  However, I suspect that taking certain users out of the board arid allowing them to make direct deals will concern only a small percentage—those depending to an enormous extent on electricity for their processes, such as aluminium smelting, where electricity can be their highest single cost factor. I am sure that opting out will be widely welcomed by many industries in the west midlands and elsewhere.
  With those few small reservations, I congratulate my right hon. Friend and look forward to the Bill reaching the statute book as soon as possible.
  9.21 pm
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: In my usual polite way, I have given thought to the best way of describing the Bill. The most polite expression I can think of is that it is a treacherous Bill. My view has been reinforced by comments made by the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) who, in referring to the mining industry, spoke of it as cossetted and protected. That comment is insulting to an industry that has improved its productivity by 50 per cent. in the last four years, and says more about the Government's dogma against the mining industry. The Electricity Bill is very much an anti-mining industry Bill.
  This is the Government who preach against monopolies, but their Bill proposes creating a most dangerous private cartel. While preaching the gospel according to the consumer, the Government are creating a situation in which the consumer will have to foot the Bill for the fat cats of the City. The Bill is not about the best way to supply energy or the efficiency of power supplies: it is more of the same poison from the politics of dogma. The Government's whole approach to the public sector is one of hostility. Regardless of the service provided, the Government say, "If it is provided by the State, we shall sell it off to our fat cats in the City."
  Right hon. and hon. Members will recall the late Viscount Stockton, a former Conservative Prime Minister, condemning the present Government for selling off the family silver. The present Government are the "spiv brokers of the century". There are three balls hanging outside 10 Downing street, the home of the supreme pawnbroker. Bad as that is, even more offensive is the effect this Bill will have on the consumer, the electricity industry and the workers within the energy industry. Its effects will devastate the mining industry. As a Member representing a Scottish constituency, I say that it will be especially devastating to the Scottish mining industry.
  The Bill spells the death of the Scottish mining industry. In 1964, I joined the mining industry in Scotland as an apprentice engineer and I was promised a long future. Within four years, I had to get on the proverbial "Tebbit bike" to go down to continue my career in the Nottinghamshire coalfield. Again, I was told that there was a safe and secure future for coal there.
  736
  Then cheap oil flooded the oil markets. When miners' leaders warned Governments of the dangers of closing pits and giving the energy monopoly to the oil sheikhs, they were laughed at. In the early 1970s, the Arabs cornered the market and quadrupled oil prices. The effect on Western economies was devastating, and we are still feeling the pinch of selling our energy industry to the oil sheikhs.
  Sadly, we are going down the same road again. We are closing our mines and allowing the foreign producers of coal to corner our markets. At the same time. we are expanding the nuclear power industry, with its high costs and shady safety record. Nuclear power is the great "That Was" for the Government.
  The one thing that we know about the Government is that they will buy coal from anywhere— South Africa, Colombia or China. They will buy coal from anywhere, but they will not support the British mining industry.
  Perhaps the Minister of State, Scottish Office will tell us who will foot the bill for the £2·5 billion owed by the SSEB and the Hydro Board. We are interested to know that.
  Much has been said in the debate about efficiency and costs. When British Airways was privatised, we were told that writing off debts was an incentive to the private sector. It would be good if the Government had the same faith in the public sector. If they wrote off the debts of the mining industry, which are more than £4 per tonne, that would create incentives for public industry. But the Government are not interested in public industry. They do not consider the public good; they are interested only in private good, monopolies and fat cats in the City.
  It is ironic that we are having the Second Reading of the Bill in the same week as the miners in the Nottingham coalfields have finally rumbled the stiletto gang, the leaders of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers in Nottingham. We are told today that 56 per cent. of them voted against the latest pay offer. Last week, there were allegations of ballot rigging, and the word in the Nottingham coalfields today is that the vote would have been 80 per cent. were it not for that. Even in Nottingham, the miners have woken up to this Government. It gives me no joy to say to the Nottingham miners, "I told you so," but we certainly did. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) is not in his place. I remember him sneaking through picket lines during the miners' strike, going to hotels, buying dinner for UDM leaders and saying, "We are the party that supports you."
  As a result of the Bill, pits will close in the Nottinghamshire coalfields, as well as the Scottish, Welsh and peripheral coalfields. Pits in and around the Gentleman's constituency, including Bilsthorpe, Sherwood, Annesley, 0llerton and Bevercotes, are threatened by the Bill. We are not talking now about economic pits; we are talking about power stations that can be fed from ports that are supported by the high priestess herself, the Prime Minister. She voted for the closure motion in respect of the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill to build a coal terminal on Humberside.
  The message to the hon. Member for Sherwood is that he was promised West Burton as a gimmick, but nobody believes that it will be built. Coal and coal miners' jobs will go sailing down the Humber, at the same time as Tory Members in the midlands are selling the miners down the river. The Bill will cost the hon. Member for Sherwood his seat, and when the electorate realise what the Government have done, the Bill will cost them their office.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. John Maxton: During his opening speech, the Secretary of State suggested that tomorrow would be Scottish day—presumably implying that today was English day. He was wrong, because four Scottish Members have already spoken, I am replying on behalf of the Opposition and a Scottish Minister is replying on behalf of the Government.
  Nevertheless, I hope that tomorrow will indeed prove to be a Scottish day because that will mean very few contributions from the Conservative Benches. During today's discussion on the privatisation of the Scottish electricity supply industry, not a single Scottish Tory Back Bencher has been in the Chamber. The Minister has been here most of the time, but the Secretary of State for Scotland has not bothered to be here for most of the debate. Of course, there are few Scottish Tory Members. Indeed, following a walk-out, neither has any Scottish Democrat been here to listen to the debate.
  There should have been a separate Scottish Bill dealing with privatisation in Scotland because the Scottish industry is different and separate. It is organised differently, it will be privatised differently and different problems will arise for Scotland. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), the Secretary of State said that, because the various areas of the industry were nationalised under one Bill, they should be privatised under one Bill. In fact, they were nationalised under the control of the then Minister for Fuel and Power; they were only separated and the Scottish boards put under the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland by a Tory Government in 1955. The Secretary of State should have got that little fact right—[HON. MEMBERS: "He did."] He did not; he was wrong.
  The Secretary of State is, as usual, dodging his responsibilities and refusing to be accountable to the Scottish Members of Parliament. He is allowing his junior Minister to take the Bill through Parliament because he knows that he cannot man a Standing Committee to deal with a separate Scottish Bill. He simply does not have enough Back Benchers. It is insulting to the House and to Scottish Members that our business should be conducted in that way. It has nothing to do with nationalism or devolution; it has everything to do with how this House treats its Scottish Members and Scottish business. If there is to be separate Scottish legislation and separate Scottish administration, the House must learn to deal with that properly.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland said that the reason for having just one Bill was that its regulatory powers would be common to England, Scotland and Wales. However, as soon as the Scottish press suggested that the regulatory powers would come under the Secretary of State for Energy, the Secretary of State for Scotland quickly denied that and said that the regulatory powers for Scotland would come under his Department. I hope that the Minister will clarify that.
  As I understand it, the Bill provides for a director for the regulatory board. Presumably, there will be a deputy director seated in Edinburgh looking after Scottish matters. It will be an odd set-up if the deputy of the board is responsible not to his boss, but to a different Secretary of State. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to explain it, but that is the way it appears at present. We
  738
  shall have the odd separation of regulation between Scotland and England as a result of what the Secretary of State is doing.
  Why should we privatise the Scottish boards? What arguments can there possibly be for privatising? The Secretary of State for Energy tries to suggest that the reason for privatising the English boards was to introduce an element of competition and to put into the boards the idea at least that local companies could compete where they get their generation supplies. In an eloquent and logical speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) successfully demolished that argument. Even if the arguments of the Secretary of State for Energy stand up in England and Wales—in my view, they do not—they certainly do not stand up in Scotland, where two vertically integrated companies, both generating and distributing companies, are to be established.
  There is to be no competition for the consumer. There will not even be competition for generation. Each company will have its own defined areas and its own defined generators. There is to be a split-up between the two companies about which is to get which piece of generating capacity and which is not. The Cruachan power station is to be given to the South of Scotland electricity board. Half the capacity of the Peterhead station is to be given to the South of Scotland electricity board. The Hydro Board is to get so much from the SSEB in return. It is all to be carved up before privatisation even takes place. There is to be no competition.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) gave the game away. He said that one area in which there could just possibly be competition in England, Wales and Scotland is among the big industrial users of electricity, and that they might compete and try to get a better deal from another generating board. He said that, if that happens, we must ensure that the company that was supplying before remains viable. He wants regulation and control and some way in which competition is stopped. He does not regard competition as beneficial in the longer term to the companies that are operating.
  What on earth is the argument in Scotland? What argument can the Minister of State, Scottish Office provide to show what competitive element will be introduced in Scotland to justify privatising an industry that the people of Scotland have clearly said that they do not wish to be privatised?
  I refer not just to the average consumer but to political parties in Scotland, with the sole exception of the Tory party, which, according to the last opinion poll, had 19 per cent. support in Scotland. Even the CBI in Scotland, major industries and the Hydro Board do not want the industry to be privatised. Perhaps the only people who want it to be privatised are members of the SSEB board, presumably because they see themselves getting much larger salaries as a result of privatisation. There is no logical argument for this privatisation taking place.
  In his evidence to the Committee, the Secretary of State—I have also heard the Minister speaking on television, certainly within the past fortnight and several times before that—said that the reason for the privatisation of Scottish boards was to transfer control of the Scottish electricity industry from the Treasury in London to Scotland.
  It is a remarkable indictment of the Secretary of State and the Minister if they are now saying that they do not control the Scottish electricity industry, have no power over it at present, and do not wish to control it. That is

  739
  what they have been saying over the past week. They say that ownership of the Scottish electricity supply will be transferred back to Scotland. The Minister tonight and the Secretary of State tomorrow had better tell the House and the Scottish people exactly how they will ensure that the ownership of the Scottish electricity industry will be in the hands of Scots immediately after privatisation and will remain there.
  It is interesting that the Secretary of State for Energy did not mention a golden share. The phrase did not cross his lips. Over the past few days we have heard many rumours and much speculation from the Scottish Office about golden shares. Golden shares can only be about ensuring that the companies do not fall into foreign hands, but the Government do not consider England to be foreign. [HON. MEMBERS: "Do you?"] No, I do not. As the Secretary of State and the Scottish people own and run the Scottish electricity supply industry, the Secretary of State for Scotland must give guarantees that the industry will remain in Scottish hands, but he cannot do that.
  The chairman of the SSEB, Donald Miller, has said that there are not sufficient funds among Scottish investors to purchase the Scottish companies. How on earth will the Government ensure that the Scottish electricity supply industry, at present controlled by the Secretary of State, will remain in Scotland? I do not think that they can. They have no means of ensuring that, whether through a golden share or whatever. Therefore, we are likely to see the Scottish electricity supply industry, which the Scottish people want to see in the hands of Scots, passed from Scottish hands into the control of others. We do not want that.
  If the Scottish companies must be privatised, the Secretary of State must ensure that they are and will remain viable and that prices do not rise. The Secretary of State for Energy and Conservative Members keep saying that competition will force down prices, but Donald Miller is on record as saying that as a result of privatisation prices in Scotland will rise. The Government must tell us how the Scottish industry will remain viable.
  Unlike England and Wales, Scotland generates more electricity than it needs and at present it sells electricity to the English boards. If it is not to make a loss, and we do not want to see Scottish power stations, particularly coal burn stations, closing, it will have to sell much more of its over-capacity. We must sell much more if we are not to see dramatic price increases and many people being made redundant. As we shall have to sell much more, the interconnector between Scotland and England will have to be improved to ensure the passage of supply. Who will pay for that? Who will raise the cash to ensure that that interconnector will be put in place quickly? It is a searing indictment of the CEGB and the Government that the interconnector has not been upgraded in the past few years. In the first few years, Scottish boards may well be in serious difficulties because of that, and they will not be able to sell sufficient power to England.
  The question that we must ask is, who will be paying for the interconnector? If the Scottish boards are left to pay for it, the price of electricity to Scottish consumers will increase because they will have to find the money to pay for that. If the CEGB or the new local companies in England are to pay for it, they will have to increase prices. Or are the Government to pay for it? Can we have a clear statement from the Government as to whether they will pay?
  740
  Finally, because this is much more of a problem in Scotland than in England and Wales, we must know who will bear the costs of decommissioning. Donald Miller has made it clear that if the Scottish boards are left to carry the full cost of decommissioning the nuclear power stations, they will be "unsellable". Those were Donald Miller's words, not mine. Again, the Government must make it clear exactly how they will make the companies sellable.
  Opposition Members believe that there is no need for privatisation. The electricity supply industry is efficient. It serves a social and economic purpose. Competition will not be introduced as a result of the legislation. The Bill is wrong in principle and will be wrong in practice. I ask my hon. Friends to vote against it.
  9.45 pm
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, will reply to tomorrow's debate, so perhaps it will help the House if I now reply to some of the points that have been raised. I shall deal first with the points raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), who repeated the complaint of Opposition Members, that we have heard much of in Scotland in recent weeks—that there should be a separate Scottish Bill.
  It is an interesting doctrine that, because the Labour party is opposed to a piece of legislation, it wants two Bills on that subject so that it can oppose the legislation twice. Perhaps that is to conceal the differences that may exist between Scottish and English Opposition Members on this issue; but, on reflection, that is unlikely, as no differences on this matter could exceed the differences that already exist within the Scottish Labour party on almost every issue facing us today.
  There are differences between some of the provisions in the Bill relating to Scotland and those relating to England. However, they reflect the distinctive characteristics of the electricity industry in those countries, sensitively recognised, which presumably is what Opposition Members would wish. They do not reflect any difference in the underlying philosophy. The Scottish industry has much in common with that south of the border. Therefore, it is entirely right and logical, in provisions on issues such as safety, security of supply or regulation, where there is much that is the same in the two countries, that there should be one Bill to avoid duplication.
  We should put the Bill in its proper perspective. It privatises 15 undertakings in one piece of legislation. In 1947, the then Labour Government nationalised not 15 but 561 different undertakings throughout Scotland, England and Wales—in one Bill. Fifty-three Scottish undertakings—53 centres of Scottish enterprise and decision-making—were wiped out. The control of their activities was taken south to the Central Electricity Authority, which was established in England by that Labour Government, along with 500 more from England and Wales. So let us hear no more humbug from the Labour party about wanting more than one Bill, when we are bringing the Scottish industry back to Scotland.
  The hon. Member for Cathcart complained that five Conservative Back Benchers from Scotland have not been present. I should point out that 40 of his Back Benchers from Scotland are not here either, including, for much of

  741
  the debate, his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) who will open the debate for the Opposition tomorrow.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy made it clear that the Electricity Bill will enable the guiding principles and aims set out in our White Papers early this year to become reality.
  The Bill marks a turning point in the history of the electricity industry. No longer will there be cosy arrangements between public sector bodies, which mask the real costs of running the industry and provide no incentives for customers and employees to invest in the industry's future. We shall be shaking free the shackles of State control, providing new opportunities for competition and making the electricity industry subject to the rigours of the private sector.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) rightly pointed to the extent of competition that is to be introduced by the Bill. One of his examples was the access of major industrial users in England and Wales direct to the generators—
  Mr. Maxton rose—
  Mr. Lang: No, I shall not give way, because I am replying to a point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby.
  I am happy to reassure my right hon. Friend, who asked whether the Bill provides cover for that purpose, that it does and that that will be achieved through the licence arrangements for which clause 7(2) provides the powers.
  My right hon. Friend also asked about Drax being protected in terms of the costs for fitting the fluid gas desulphurisation plant. I must say that, while the details are still under consideration, I assure my hon. Friend that our aim is to ensure that stations fitted with fluid gas desulphurisation equipment will not be disadvantaged in the running of the merit order. My right hon. Friend referred to the dramatic improvement of 75 per cent. in productivity at Selby and pointed to the coal to Drax being delivered at the rate of 38,000 tonnes a day, to which Lord Marshall said that the power station was inextricably linked, when he prophesied a bright future for it.
  Coal can have a bright future in the electricity generating industry, provided that it is competitive. The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) suggested that coal was in fact cheaper than nuclear power. That is not the case in Scotland. The SSEB's recent all-in cost figures showed nuclear at 1·9p per unit compared with fossil fuel at 2·4p per unit.
  Mr. Eadie: What about the billions of pounds of capital debt that the SSEB has built up? The fact is that the Government are now considering writing that off to assist privatisation.
  Mr. Lang: The position of the debt in the SSEB and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board will be dealt with when it comes to flotation, and the Government will consider to what extent that debt should be converted into equity or debentures in order to maximise the return to the taxpayer. Therefore, the hon. Member for Midlothian does not have a strong point there.
  742
  To those who said that coal was not guilty as a pollutant, I say that that may be true in Scotland, where to a large extent low-sulphur content coal is used, but I hope that they welcome the desulphurising equipment now being installed in power stations at a cost of £1·6 billion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) said, nuclear energy in this context will be environmentally preferable.
  Coal can be competitive. Indeed, it is precisely that fear of competition presented by the Bill that causes hon. Gentlemen who represent coal mining constituencies to express their anxieties so readily.
  Mr. Hardy rose—
  Mr. Lang: I shall not give way, because the hon. Gentleman has not been present during the debate, and I have many points to which to refer.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeen. North (Mr. Hughes) raised the question of wider share ownership. I must say to him that, far from discouraging wider share ownership, the Bill will be one more opportunity to increase share ownership in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: It has failed in the past.
  Mr. Lang: It has not failed in the past. In Scotland since 1979 the number of individual shareholders has doubled. This is an opportunity for consumers and for employees in the Scottish industry to gain access to ownership of part of their industry.
  It was my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) who drew the analogy with buses and told us of the success which had been achieved by deregulation and privatisation. When we announced our plans to privatise buses in Scotland, the hon. Member for Garscadden said that the measure was not wanted. Yet the next day the newspapers were full of pictures of employers seeking anxiously to establish themselves as candidates for employee buy-outs. That is the enthusiasm that exists in Scotland for ownership of the private bus sector.
  The Bill will bring about effective change and improved performance in one of our most important and dynamic industries. The cost-plus era for the electricity consumer will come to an end, and I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) of that. Decisions about the supply of electricity will be driven by customer needs. The director general will promote competition—the best guarantee of customers' interests. He will oversee prices and protect customers' interests where natural monopolies remain. Security and safety of supply will be maintained. Customers will get new rights and not just safeguards; and all who work in the industry will be able to have a direct stake in their future, with new career opportunities and freedom to manage their affairs without Government interference.
  Opposition Members are aware of the benefits which will flow from our proposals, even though they dare not admit as much. Instead, they resort to idle and misplaced speculation about higher electricity prices, which have absolutely no foundation in the facts.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) was right to say that the competition of new entrants to the generating industry was beginning to introduce downward pressure on prices.

  743
  Many of my hon. Friends have drawn attention to the benefits that the Government's proposals will bring to electricity consumers, to the industry and its employees.
  The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) predicted price rises—predictions made, of course, before the Bill was published—although that did not make much difference, given his contribution today. In his predictions he included price increases that had already taken place. He then added a dividend figure for investors, overlooking the fact that the industry already makes a return on its assets, which will form the basis of that dividend, even though that return is below the rate of return proposed by the Labour Government in 1978.
  The hon. Gentleman also added a wholly speculative figure, unfounded in fact, for the fossil fuel levy. He ignored the fact that we are already paying for nuclear generation and that the purpose of the levy is to maintain that level of generation and to make the costs transparent.
  Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was at his most sickening when he referred to the heating costs of the poor. Apart from all the extra heating allowances that the Government have introduced in the past nine years, the hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that, between 1974 and 1979, prices under the Labour Government rose by 180 per cent., a real terms increase of 20 per cent. In the past five years, under the Government, prices have fallen by 9 per cent. in real terms in Scotland and by 8 per cent. in England and Wales.
  Mr. Robert Hughes rose—
  Mr. Lang: No, I shall not give way.
  The hon. Member for Sedgefield was notably silent on whether or not his party is still committed to phasing out nuclear energy, given the increased costs of some 30 per cent. that would result. He asked us why we should privatise; the debate has been permeated by contributions from the Labour party asking why we bother. That is typical of the inert, negative and complacent attitude that the Labour party adopts to such important economic issues. Why bother? If we had not bothered to fight inflation it would still be averaging more than 15·5 per cent., as it did under the Labour Government. If we had not bothered to turn our attention to the state of the economy, unemployment would still be rising, following its doubling under the Labour Government. Industrial relations would still be at their worst ever and probably the IMF would still be running the country.
  It is precisely because we have bothered that public expenditure is now under control and falling. It is because we have bothered that taxation is now down, unemployment is falling and, in terms of manufacturing productivity, we have moved from the bottom to the top of the league. It is because we have bothered that we have had seven years of sustained growth and rising prosperity. It is because we have bothered that so many of the nationalised industries are now viable, successful and revenue-generating in private hands.
  Mr. Maxton rose—
  Mr. Lang: No, I am sorry: I shall not give way.
  Before we bothered, those nationalised industries were a drain on the taxpayer. They were inefficient, uncompetitive and lacking in investment. With electricity,
  744
  as with the other industries, there are more benefits to come, following even on the efficiency that has led to the fall in prices in real terms in the past few years.
  We have bothered because we care. It is because we have bothered that the failures of the Labour Government are our successes as well as the promised successes of the future.
  Our proposals will push electricity costs downwards by ensuring that a competitive environment is created within a Great Britain market for electricity. We shall improve the quality and timing of major investment decisions. The hon. Member for Sedgefield complained about 80 per cent. over-capacity at the time of nationalisation. In Scotland, present over-capacity is not 80 per cent., but 100 per cent. That has been caused by nationalisation and public ownership.
  Our proposals will enable larger electricity customers to contract directly with suppliers of their own choice. I do not accept the problem that the hon. Member for Wandsbeck (Mr. Thompson) identified regarding the use of the grid. We shall create new opportunities for private generators to contract with public electricity suppliers or direct with large customers. We shall require public electricity suppliers and transmission licence holders to offer fair terms for carrying electricity generated.
  As well as promoting competition, the Government's proposals combine the benefits of security of supply with enhanced consumer rights. The proposals will ensure that, in England and Wales, the electricity consumer continues to benefit from diversity of supply by requiring each public electricity supplier to purchase a specified minimum amount of non-fossil fuel generating capacity. In Scotland, the substantive investment already made in non-fossil fuel generating capacity makes such a requirement unnecessary for the foreseeable future.
  We have made clear our intention to create a modern. competitive industry throughout Great Britain in which the public will have a major stake and which will be responsive to the needs of customers.
  Privatisation of electricity will offer real benefits and new prospects for the customer, the employee and the economy as a whole. We believe that privatisation of the electricity industry will provide new and exciting opportunities. The Bill represents a major step forward in the Government's privatisation programme. Privatisation of the electricity industry will be good for the consumer, the taxpayer, the industry and its employees and the economy as a whole.
  Our proposals will secure even greater efficiency in the provision of a service that is vital to the future economic prosperity of this country. They will provide new opportunities for ownership by consumers, employees and financial institutions, so that they can acquire a stake in one of our most modern and important industries—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That—

  (1) this House do meet on Thursday 22nd December at half-past Nine o'clock;

  (2) notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 17 (Questions to Members), no Questions shall be taken, provided that at eleven o'clock Mr. Speaker may interrupt the proceedings in order to permit questions to be asked which are in his opinion of an urgent character and

  745
  relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business, statements to be made by Ministers, or personal explanations to be made by Members; and

  (3) at half-past Three o'clock Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any Question, provided that this House shall not adjourn until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. John M. Taylor]

  PETITION No. 2
  10 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I wish to present a petition on behalf of more than 4,000 people who are worried about the South East Thames regional health authority's plans to close the physiotherapy schools at Guy's hospital in my constituency and at St. Thomas's hospital in the constituency of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland), who supports the petitioners, as I do.
  The two schools of physiotherapy are rightly renowned for their excellence. The number of signatories to the petition and the amount of correspondence received not only by me and the hon. Member for Vauxhall but by many hon. Members pay tribute to the reputations of those schools in the eyes of their present and former students. Quite apart from the wisdom of closing two schools with a proven record to set up a new and untried department on the south coast, the petitioners are worried that this relocation can do nothing but increase the acute shortage of physiotherapists in London, where already 12·8 per cent. of posts are unfilled.
  The petition concludes:
  we wish to express our extreme concern at the proposals adopted by South East Thames Regional Health Authority, to close the schools of physiotherapy at Guy's and St. Thomas's Hospitals. We believe this will result in a deterioration of the standard of patient care currently available in the region, and further exacerbate the existing shortage of staff in the capital.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will note our concern and seek to oppose these proposals.
  That is my wish and that of the petitioners and the hon. Member for Vauxhall.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Hormone Products (EC Ban)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr.Maclean.]
  10.2 pm
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves: The EC Council of Agricultural Ministers agreed in December 1985 to pass directive 85/649, which banned the use of hormone products for fattening cattle throughout the EC from 1 January 1988. The decision provoked a storm of protest, not least from the British Government, and I am grateful that our Government have been the strongest and most consistent opponent of the ban in the Community. Unfortunately, the British Government's attempt to challenge the ban in the European Court of Justice was not successful.
  The immediate consequences of this total ban are very serious for international trade. It will prohibit the sale to EC markets of meat from animals which have been treated with hormones, whether for therapeutic reasons or for growth promotion. This will include all imports of meat and offal from third countries such as the United States of America. The meat processing industry in the EC is dependent on imported offal since the EC does not produce sufficient to meet its requirements, and consequently the ban will put at risk not only 45 jobs at Wirral Foods in Great Harwood, in my constituency, but over 300 jobs in the tongue canning industry in other parts of the country, if it is imposed after 31 December.
  My constituents at Wirral Foods are grateful for all that is being done by their energetic production director, Mr. Brian Quinn, by Mr. Richard Burdekin, managing director of Rea Valley Canned Meat Ltd. and by the Government in pressing the Commission to try to resolve the trade problems created by the hormone ban in the general agreement on tariffs and trade and through bilateral discussions with the United States. It is always sad when jobs are lost and hard-working people are thrown out of work. However, it is nonsense when jobs are lost because of an unnecessary ban which, far from safeguarding the health of the consumer—which is supposed to be the justification for the ban—may put health at risk.
  Meat from steers properly treated with hormones is often found to have lower hormone levels than meat from bulls and cows that are not treated at all. It is also leaner and thus considered safer. There is no scientific or medical evidence to suggest that the banned hormones are harmful in any way. The United States and the Common Market have used licensed growth-promoting hormones without any problems for over 20 years. All scientific and medical evidence proves that the licensed hormones oestradiol 17 beta, progesterone, testosterone, trenbolone and zeranol used in the correct manner are entirely harmless, and most third countries including the United States are still using them.
  The five hormones that I have mentioned have been declared safe by a committee of the international food and health organisation Codex Alimentarius, which is made up of representatives of 134 countries, and funded jointly by the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation and the World Health Organisation. At the time of the ban, a committee of independent scientific experts set up

  747
  by the European Community was about to report that there was no danger whatever in the controlled use of hormones. The European Parliament passed the resolution without waiting for the report, and the Council of Ministers abruptly dismissed the committee of scientists before the report could be published, thus effectively supressing it.
  That was a splendid example of the "I've made up my mind, don't confuse me with the facts" syndrome. This confirmed that the ban was introduced for political reasons, to reduce the beef mountain, to protect certain continental farmers from British and Irish competition, and to pander to a vociferous and ill-informed minority.
  The scientists were so outraged by the action of the Council of Ministers that they came together at their own expense at Warwick 12 months ago and stated openly and unanimously that there was no risk at all to human health in eating meat treated with approved hormones.
  Perhaps I could put the matter in a more understandable context. One litre of beer has the same hormone content as 100 kg of meat from an implanted steer; one tablespoon of soya bean oil has the same hormone content as 1,650 kg of meat from an implanted steer; and 1 kg of cabbage has the same hormone content as 2,000 kg of meat from an implanted steer.
  Every day, a pregnant woman produces as much oestrogen hormone as is found in 1,350 tonnes of meat from an implanted steer. If she ate half a kilogram of meat from a steer implanted with an approved hormone, should would increase the hormone content of her body by three millionths of 1 per cent. It has been calculated on the basis of figures from the World Health Organisation that a child weighing 30 kg could eat more than 112 tonnes of meat per day without any risk from hormones, natural or implanted. However, such a child might be at grave risk from indigestion.
  It can well be argued that the real risk to health comes not from the use of these natural hormones, but from the danger that the banning of licensed hormones will lead to a black market in illegal unlicensed products. Unlike the licensed products, these illicit substances pose a serious health risk to the consumer, since their constituents, the method of application and the dosage are totally uncontrolled, and the presence of these illicit products in meat is almost impossible to detect by existing testing methods. The only way to control the situation is to allow supervised use of those growth promoting hormones known to be safe, thereby extinguishing the need for a black market.
  Since the announcement of this debate, I have received a letter from the National Farmers Union that confirms that the hormone growth promoters used by British beef producers before the national ban on their use, implemented on 6 December 1986, were the five substances I referred to earlier. The letter goes on:
  "The NFU does not want the hormone ban lifted, rather it wants it amended so as to include a positive list of products that have been proven safe. These could be then made permissible for EC beef producers to use. We consider this position to be entirely consistent with the need to safeguard public and animal health, whilst at the same time ensuring legislation is based upon scientific evidence. We envisage that such a list would probably include the five products oestradiol 17 beta, testosterone, progesterone, trenbolone, and zeranol, once they undergo testing to satsify the European and national authorities that they pose no threat to health."
  That seems to be a positive way forward.
  748
  I hope that, even at this late stage, the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Office to have the one-year exemption extended will succeed. That would give a little extra time to find a way out of our crisis and perhaps allow common sense to prevail.
  It is depressing that the dispute should have reached this stage, but we cannot sit back and wait for United States retaliation, which will surely come if the ban goes ahead, and with it the loss of even more jobs in this country. I hope, not least for my constituents at Wirral Foods, that the Government will continue to do all in their power to persuade the European Commission to be reasonable, and act now to ensure that a ban which is unnecessary, will lose jobs, and increase the risks to health, is not imposed.
  I hope that, at the very least, as a result of this debate, someone from the European Parliament who supported the ban will respond to the invitation from Brian Quinn of Wirral Foods to explain it and justify it to his employees, who are to be deprived of their livelihood, because up to now, European Members of Parliament have failed to do so.
  10.12 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Donald Thompson): The Government have a great deal of sympathy for the views expressed by my hon. Friend, the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves). Successive Ministers of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have argued most forcefully in Brussels against a hormones ban. We believed, as we still do, that a ban is quite unjustifiable on any scientific grounds. Moreover, it would interfere unreasonably with supplies of meat and offals from countries outside the EC boundaries, many of which continued to authorise the use of hormone growth promoters. I shall not here rehearse the full history of the hormones ban, since my hon. Friend has covered much of this ground, but I should perhaps recount the main events since they demonstrate the strength of our opposition to the ban.
  In 1981, the European Council initially adopted a directive which, among other things, instructed the EC Commission to undertake a scientific study of the five substances commonly used as hormone growth promoters. That was done in a working party chaired by Professor Eric Lamming of Nottingham university. The working party was able to report favourably quite quickly on three of the five hormones. It needed further information on the other two and so a report on these two substances was somewhat delayed.
  In the interim, however, the European Parliament reported in favour of a ban on all five. As my hon. Friend has explained, the EC Commission did not wait for the final report of the Lamming working party, but proposed to the Council that a ban on all five substances be adopted. The Government protested most strongly to the Commission about this proposal and about its treatment of Professor Lamming and his working party. However, the matter was considered by the Council of Ministers in December 1985 and the proposal for a ban was adopted. by a vote conducted by written procedure.
  The Government contested this directive on a number of grounds in the European Court of Justice. In its

  749
  judgment, delivered earlier this year, the court did not address itself to the issues of scientific justification or the impact on supplies of meat and offal from third countries. It did rule in the United Kingdom's favour, however, on a purely technical irregularity in procedure. The directive was annulled as a result but the Council of Ministers proceeded at once to re-adopt the initial directive. The United Kingdom Government again voted against the directive and once more forcefully rehearsed their objections to it.
  It will be clear to hon. Members, as my hon. Friend has said, that the Government have been a strong and consistent opponent of the ban. My hon. Friend also referred to the real risks of a black market in hormones developing in the wake of the ban. The Government have always recognised that, if products acknowledged to be safe are banned, there is a real risk that producers denied access to them would be tempted to turn to dangerous options. We have consistently warned our Community partners of this risk.
  I know that the ban on trade and on the availability of supplies of beef and beef offals to United Kingdom manufacturers, especially ox tongues for canning, is of the greatest concern to my right hon. Friend the Minister. My hon. Friend will know that I have met many of those who are concerned, especially those who run Rea Valley Canned Meat Ltd, which has taken in hand the task of bringing all the serious and difficult matters to our attention. They are especially serious for those whose jobs and livelihoods will be affected by any such ban.
  As I am sure the House is aware, the United States made it clear at the outset that it regarded the hormones ban as an unjustified barrier to trade and that it was not prepared to attempt to comply with the Community's requirements. This has had two most serious consequences. First, Community manufacturers are to be denied access to United States supplies of beef and beef offals. My hon. Friend has already made clear the damaging impact that this would have for some of our meat manufacturers and particularly for those specialist producers of canned tongues who rely so heavily on United States supplies.
  In the second place, the United States has threatened to take retaliatory action against some $110 million-worth of EC exports from 1 January 1989. There is therefore a real risk that we shall find ourselves drawn into an escalating dispute at the very time when we and others are pressing for the liberalisation of international agricultural trade.
  Over the past two years, we have consistently urged the European Commission to find a solution to the dispute with the United States either within the framework of the GATT arrangements or through bilateral discussions. I
  750
  am sorry to say, however, that neither of these avenues has yet produced a solution. The Commission has shown little flexibility in the GATT and has consistently resisted any procedural move to allow an assessment of the scientific basis of the ban. The Americans continue to insist on such a scientific assessment.
  Unless some last-minute progress can be made, which of course we continue to urge, it now seems inevitable that there will be a disruption of United States supplies next year and that United States trade retaliation will follow. An escalating trade war could spill from this narrow, but wide enough, issue. I can reassure my hon. Friend, however, that we shall not cease to press for a compromise in the dispute, and particularly one that allows access for United States supplies. We shall continue also to press the argument that EC policy should be firmly based on scientific evidence.
  I should say a further word about the availability of supplies for United Kingdom manufacturers. Although it now seems inevitable that imports from the United States will be disrupted from the end of the year, contrary to what my hon. Friend has feared, imports from all other traditional suppliers to the Community, with the exception of Canada, will continue. At its meeting last week, with our support, the standing veterinary committee approved the guarantees offered by some 25 countries and voted to continue to accept their exports.
  There are still difficulties to be overcome; some countries have been approved on a provisional basis only. I am hopeful that the technical problems can be resolved, and that more widespread conflict and trade disruption can be avoided. I know that there are severe difficulties in turning from United States supplies to other sources, but I believe that the decision to continue access for Australian and New Zealand supplies in particular will prove of some comfort to United Kingdom manufacturers.
  Finally, let me sum up the Government's position on the hormones ban, which closely accords with the views expressed by the National Farmers Union to which my hon. Friend referred. We have consistently opposed the ban, and continue to believe that the prohibition on the five substances in common use worldwide is unjustified. We have consistently argued that the policy on hormones should be based on science and not on expediency. We have consistently worked to find a solution to the dispute with the United States, and to the problem of disruption of supplies for United Kingdom manufacturers.
  My hon. Friend has done a great deal for his constituents, and for those of his colleagues on both sides of the House. I can reassure him that we too shall continue our efforts on all those fronts.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Ten o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Patrick Ryan
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement as to the progress of the extradition of Patrick Ryan from the Republic of Ireland.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers which I gave to the private notice question tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) on 1 December and on 7 December to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). At present, I have no further developments to report.

  Extradition
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the operation of extradition procedures between the United Kingdom and other countries; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Where the United Kingdom has an extradition treaty with a foreign state other than a member of the Commonwealth, the provisions of that treaty and of the Extradition Act 1870 presently apply. With effect from a day to be appointed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary provision for new extradition arrangements with foreign states will be made by part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

  Extradition procedures involving a fugitive from a Commonwealth country apprehended here are governed by the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967, and those sought by our own prosecuting authorities who are within the jurisdiction of one of our Commonwealth partners are subject to reciprocal legislation in substantially the same terms.

  Finally, the position of the Republic of Ireland is different again and is unique. Extradition procedures depend upon reciprocal legislation enacted by both nations in 1965. The Irish Extradition Act was amended in certain significant respects at the end of last year. Our own legislation has not been altered correspondingly.

  The Government are satisfied that the procedures under the United Kingdom legislation and associated treaties with foreign states provide the basis for satisfactory extradition arrangements.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the number of outstanding extradition warrants against residents of the Irish Republic who are wanted in connection with terrorist offences.

  The Attorney-General
  Warrants issued in the United Kingdom for the arrests of 24 fugitives believed to be in the Republic of Ireland are presently outstanding. I do not think it would be in the public interest to specify how many of these warrants have been issued in connection with terrorist offences.

  Entry Clearances
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the average cost to public funds of all work in connection with an appeal against refusal of entry to the United Kingdom including the time expended in preparing the entry clearance officers' report, the appeal hearing and the ultimate determination of the case.

  The Attorney-General
  The average cost to public funds of all work in connection with an appeal against refusal of entry to the United Kingdom is not readily identifiable. The Home Office, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Lord Chancellor's Department all incur expenditure in relation to such appeals but it is not possible for those Departments to identify separately costs attributable to particular types of work related to appeals against refusal of entry only.

  However, the average cost to the FCO of preparing an entry clearance officers' explanatory statement in 1987—88 (the last complete year for which figures are available) was estimated to be £85. The average cost to the Lord Chancellor's Department of the work done by the immigration appelate authorities in hearing and determining an appeal against refusal of entry is currently estimated to be £113.

  The Coventry Four
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Attorney-General what discussions took place between his Department and the office of Mr. Justice Leonard in the case of those persons known as the Coventry four.

  The Attorney-General
  None.

  Mortgage Fraud
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Attorney-General whether, in view of the recent court judgments which prevented the police restraining convicted defendants from profiting from assets obtained as a result of mortgage fraud, there are any legislative measures proposed to close this loophole.

  Mr. John Patten
  I have been asked to reply.

  Part VI of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 empowers the courts to restrain and confiscate property in proceedings for serious offences, including offences of the kind alleged in this case. We expect to bring these provisions into force in April 1989.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Disabled Students
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if the disabled students' allowance will remain index linked following the recent Government announcement to introduce top up loans for students.

  Mr. Jackson
  The amount of the allowance is at the discretion of local education authorities, subject to a ceiling—at present £730. That ceiling is not index linked. No decision has been taken on what it should be in the future.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the figures for the
  387
  percentages of (a) full-time students receiving the full grant from their local educational authority, (b) students receiving (i) 1 to 9 per cent., (ii) 10 to 19 per cent., (iii) 20 to 29 per cent., (iv) 30 to 39 per cent., (v) 40 to 49 per cent., (vi) 50 to 59 per cent., (vii) 60 to 69 per cent., (viii) 70 to 79 per cent., (ix) 80 to 89 per cent., (x) 90 to 99 per cent., respectively, of their grant from their local educational authority and (c) students receiving minimum grant from their local educational authority.

  Mr. Jackson
  The available data are as follows:

  Mandatory, awards (England and Wales) 1986–87

  Student numbers

  Percentage of award holders

  Full maintenance

  1145,307

  36·9

  Maintenance reduced by assessment:

  (i) Numbers of dependent students with parental contributions of:

  Under £200

  26,255

  6·7

  £201-£400

  23,573

  6·0

  £401-£600

  19,114

  4·8

  £601-£800

  17,625

  4·5

  £801-£1,000

  15,932

  4·0

  £1,001-£1,200

  14,140

  3·6

  £1,201-£1,400

  11,924

  3·0

  £1,401-£1,600

  9,491

  2·4

  £1,601-£1,800

  7,600

  1·9

  £1,801-£2,000

  5,331

  1·4

  Over £2,001

  4,323

  1·1

  (ii) Dependent students who contribute to grant from their own income

  509

  0·1

  (iii) Indpendent students

  4,954

  1·3

  Nil maintenance2

  188,188

  22·4

  1 Includes dependent and independent students.

  2 The minimum grant was abolished with effect from 1985–86. For these students only the course fees are paid.

  Teachers (Exchanges)
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to encourage the development of the overseas teachers exchange scheme with particular reference to the Commonwealth.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department continues to encourage the development within available resources of the teacher exchange schemes administered by the Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges and the League for the Exchange of Commonwealth Teachers. An evaluation of teachers exchange commissioned from the National Foundation for Educational Research is currently under consideration by the Department.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice he is giving to local education authorities on the formation of local financial management schemes to ensure that the costs of teachers' exchange schemes do not fall disproportionately on individual schools.

  Mr. Butcher
  My Department's officials have indicated that it will be open to local education authorities to propose, as part of their local management schemes, to retain as an exception from delegation the additional costs incurred by individual schools participating in teacher exchange schemes.

  Arts (Young People)
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science which bodies will take over responsibility for the present arts projects for young people after the abolition of the Inner London education authority.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The inner London councils will be responsible for all aspects of their education service, including relevant arts activities, from 1 April 1990. Boroughs have an opportunity to set out their development plans, to be published by 28 February 1989, proposals for this aspect of their service. Certain arts projects, including theatres, have already been discussed jointly by the boroughs.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what is his policy on providing timely information to local education authorities in order to enable them to respond to individual inquiries about the proposed introduction of top-up loans for students;

  (2) what arrangements he made for the distribution of copies of the White Paper "Top-up Loans for Students" to local education authorities; whether there was any delay in this distribution; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department sent copies of the White Paper to the local authority associations and copies were available for purchase by individual authorities when it was published on 9 November. The Department does not normally distribute copies of priced publications to local education authorities. Local education authorities received copies of the Department's press notice announcing the publication.

  Science Base
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to publish a policy statement on science in the light of discussions on the document "A Strategy for the Science Base" by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  When I am ready to do so.

  Capital Spending
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what allocations for capital spending, by local education authorities in respect of maintained schools, including voluntary schools, and in respect of grant maintained schools, he is making for 1989–90.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I expect to announce allocations shortly.

  Teachers (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress he has made towards finalising the guidance given by his Department to education authorities on monitoring the numbers of teachers recruited from ethnic minorities, their promotion pattern and related matters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  We expect to issue a circular on the collection of ethnically based statistics on teachers shortly. The circular will require authorities to make first returns to the Department in January 1990.

  Bradford City Technology College
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the estimated revenue costs for the city technology college in Bradford over each of the 10 years from 1990; and who is going to pay the revenue expenditure over this period.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend will pay a per capita grant to meet the normal running costs of each city technology college in line with average costs in local education authority maintained secondary schools in similar areas. It is too early to say what grant will be payable to the city technology college proposed for Bradford since this will depend on factors yet to be decided, such as the size of the city technology college and the rate at which pupils will be recruited.

PRIME MINISTER

  Retired Officers
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what restrictions exist on emigration to a Communist country of retired security service officers.

  (2) what restrictions exist covering the emigration of retired officers from the British independent nuclear deterrent programme to the Soviet Union.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 8 December 1988 at column 268.

  Nuclear Accidents
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister if any progress has been made in plans to produce a comprehensive co-ordinated arrangement to deal with emergencies arising from nuclear accidents in the United Kingdom, or in nearby countries.

  The Prime Minister
  Following the Chernobyl accident, extensive consultations were held with emergency services and those authorities who would be involved in dealing with a nuclear accident in the United Kingdom. These consultations have confirmed the availability of contingency plans which would permit an effective response to be made to any nuclear accident, including those with more widespread effects than the specific site and off-site plans are designed to cater for. These plans are kept under continuous review and are regularly exercised.

  The procedures for responding to an accident in nearby countries are set out in the Department of the Environment booklet "The National Response Plan and Radioactive Incident Monitoring Network (RIMNET): A Statement of proposals" published by HMSO, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House. Forty six monitoring stations throughout the United Kingdom became operational in June. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment expects to accept the associated computer and telecommunications systems for phase 1 of RIMNET from the contractor shortly.

  Nuclear Initiatives
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister if, during her recent visit to Washington DC, she discussed with the President and President-elect Bush any new initiatives to 390
  be developed by the Western Alliance on nuclear proliferation, the 1990 non-proliferation treaty review conference, and methods to combat nuclear terrorism.

  The Prime Minister
  These are subjects which are frequently discussed between the United States and ourselves.

  Radioactive Fallout
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make it her policy to request President Gorbachev, during his forthcoming visit to the United Kingdom, to provide financial compensation for British farmers who have suffered economic hardship following contamination of their land and livestock by radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl nuclear accident.

  The Prime Minister
  President Gorbachev's planned visit to the United Kingdom has had to be postponed because of the devastating earthquake in Armenia. The position with regard to compensation remains as stated in the reply to the hon. Member of 21 July 1986 at column 5.

  Nurses and Midwives (Pay)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received on the nurses and midwives pay award for the coming year; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister when she expects to receive the report of the nurses and midwives pay review body for 1989.

  The Prime Minister
  The review body has been asked to submit its report to me in time for decisions to be made on its recommendations by mid-February.

  Official Gifts
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister how much has been spent by her office on official gifts for presentation to Heads of Government, Heads of State and officials in each of the three financial years.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 8 December at columns 267-8.

  CPRS (Costs)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister how much of the cost of £1,109,000 for the Central Policy Review Staff in 1982·83 was wholly attributable to staffing costs; how many staff were employed; and what were the costs in 1979–80, 1980–81 and 1981–82.

  The Prime Minister
  Actual figures for the cost of the CPRS are not available and it is not possible, therefore, to identify actual staffing costs. The estimated figure of £1,109,000 quoted in my answer of 1 December 1988 at column 348 is based on a staff-in-post figure for 1982—83 of 35. The estimated costs of the CPRS, on the same basis, for the years prior to 1982–83 are:

  £

  1979–80

  662,000

  1980–81

  797,000

  1981–82

  932,000

  No. 10 Downing Street (Furnishing and Decoration)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if competitive tenders were sought for the current programme of furnishing and decorating of No. 10 Downing street.

  The Prime Minister
  Schedules of rates for the redecoration of No. 10 Downing street were obtained from two firms, on the basis of which one of them was invited to tender. The tender was evaluated by an independent consultant, and the contract price was determined in further negotiations with the tenderer.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will give a breakdown of the expenditure on(a) furnishing and (b) decoration at No. 10 Downing street for all items over £500 in the current financial year to date.

  The Prime Minister
  No. The information is not readily available in the form requested and cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  South Africa
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list the occasions on which, during the course of her official duties, she has expressed the view of Her Majesty's Government over the failure of the South African authorities to return four alleged criminals to the United Kingdom to stand trial.

  The Prime Minister
  This matter was thoroughly aired in the House at the time. I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by the then Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 23 October 1984 at columns 559-569.

WALES

  Health Service (Grading)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of clinical nursing and midwifery staff have been assimilated to each of the new clinical grades by district health authority.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Lady to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Sir R. Gower) on 1 December 1988 at columns 349-50 by my right hon. Friend.

  Acid Rain
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to limit acid rain deposition in Wales; and whether he is taking any special measures to limit acid deposition in the Snowdonia national park.

  Mr. Grist
  Limitation of acid deposition over Wales is dependent upon the reduction of emissions throughout the United Kingdom and Europe. The United Kingdom is party to a European Community directive which commits us to significant reductions in emissions from large combustion plants and sets stringent standards for emissions from new plans. Compliance will entail a substantial effort over and above the existing £1 billion programme by the Central Electricity Generating Board to 392
  retrofit 6,000 megawatts of generating capacity with flue gas desulphurisation, and all 12 major coal-fired power stations with low nitrogen oxide burners.

  We are also introducing more stringent standards for car exhaust emissions following agreement on a European Community directive in December 1987 and the meeting of Environment Ministers in November this year.

  These measures will affect deposition in all parts of Wales including the Snowdonia national park.

  Gwent-Glamorgan Archaeological Trust
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will sanction the grant of £50,000 by the Welsh Development Agency to the Gwent-Glamorgan archaeological trust to enable the wall surrounding the Salt house at Port Eynon, Gower, to be rebuilt.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The Welsh Development Agency has been given approval to include the project in its programme.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provisions the National Health Service in Wales has made for back-up services for mentally ill patients who have been discharged from hospitals.

  Mr. Grist
  The provision of appropriate services for people with mental illnesses who have been discharged from hospital is a matter for district health authorities in collaboration with a range of other bodies, including social services departments, housing bodies and the primary health care and voluntary sectors. The Welsh Office provides central support for the development of community-based mental illness services. In 1988–89 some £2·4 million of additional central funds have been allocated to Welsh health authorities for new projects for the care of people with mental illnesses.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what proposals he has to deal with those mentally ill patients in Wales discharged from hospitals without alternative accommodation.

  Mr. Grist
  The Department's draft mental illness strategy makes it clear that patients should only be discharged when appropriate alternative services are available to meet their individual needs.

  Marketing Initiative
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the cost to public funds of his Welsh agricultural and food products marketing initiative announced on 19 July at the Royal Welsh show.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I am delighted that all three of the marketing advisers have agreed to carry out their work without salary.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the terms of reference of his Welsh agricultural and food products marketing initiative announced on 19 July at the Royal Welsh show.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The marketing advisers have an open remit to use their extensive commercial expertise to
  393
  examine the broad range of Welsh agriculture and food processing in Wales and to come forward with as many constructive ideas and proposals as they see fit without any bureaucratic control or direction from me.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what have been the achievements of his Welsh agricultural and food products marketing initiative announced on 19 July at the Royal Welsh show.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  So far, the marketing advisers have been examining and evaluating the structure of Welsh production and marketing systems. More specifically they are looking at:the development of the image of Wales and high quality Welsh products;
  the marketing of Welsh lamb and associated products;
  the marketing of milk-based products;
  fresh foods and farm-scale food speciality operations.
  I am confident that the results of this work will become apparent in due course.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether his Department will now start collating statistics on planning applications in national parks in the same way as the Department of the Environment.

  Mr. Grist
  The Welsh Office already collates and makes available statistics on planning applications in national parks in Wales.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the percentage of planning applications to his Department granted on appeal; and what percentage of these relate to national parks.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the replies I gave him on 2 December at columns 418-19.

  Rate Support Grant
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) whether he is reconsidering the level of rate support grant to be paid to Cardiff city council for the 1987–88 financial year;

  (2) whether he will restore to Cardiff city council the £2·3 million which was due to that council until the moment of his rate support grant statement on 7 July;

  (3) in what circumstances the undertaking, made to the House in his statement of 8 December on the rate support grant in Wales, to consider amended figures that local authorities might submit in respect of the 1987–88 financial year and to amend their actual grant as a consequence will apply; and in what circumstances it will not apply.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend's decisions on the grant entitlement of all Welsh local authorities for 1987–88, based on the information known to him and using amount of total expenditure determined in accordance with the provisions of section 1 of and schedule 1 to the Rate Support Grants Act 1988, are set out in the Welsh Rate Support Grant Supplementary (No. 2) Report 1987–88, laid before the House on 8 December. It remains open to all authorities to make further representations as to the total expenditure figures used in calculating their grant entitlement. If my right hon. Friend is able to agree that, under the provisions of the Act, a different amount of total expenditure should be used for an authority, that authority's grant entitlement will be recalculated accordingly.
  394
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy on local authorities planning their spending ahead in accordance with the details and information provided by him in formal statements to the House and in official communications from his officials to those authorities.

  Mr. Grist
  Within the statutory framework, local authorities have discretion to determine their own spending plans.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Visa Applications
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his replies to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) of 30 November,Official Report, columns 310-16, to what causes he attributes the disproportionately high rate of refusals to applicants in Bangladesh; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The causes remain those identified in paragraphs 31 to 37 of the Home Affairs Committee's second report on immigration from the Indian subcontinent, Session 1985–86, (House of Commons Paper 67-I).

  Albino Cimini
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action has been taken by Her Majesty's embassy in Ankara concerning Albino Cimini.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Mr. Cimini was transferred on 8 December 1988 to the United Kingdom under the provisions of the Council of Europe convention on the transfer of sentenced persons, which came into force for Turkey on 1 January 1988. During his time in prison, Mr. Cimini received monthly consular visits.

  Her Majesty's embassy, Ankara, liaised with Turkish and British authorities over Mr. Cimini's application under this convention.

  Turkey
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many United Kingdom subjects are held in Turkish prisons; for what period they have been held; and what representations have been made by embassy officials concerning their plight.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There are two British subjects currently in prison in Turkey. One has been on remand for three months awaiting trial, and has legal representation. The other was imprisoned in August 1988. We do not make representations about judicial procedures in other sovereign states. Her Majesty's embassy has provided consular assistance to both prisoners.

  Angola
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any information on the number of Soviet bloc advisers in Angola at the present time.
  395
  Mrs. Chalker
  We do not have reliable information on the number of Soviet bloc advisers in Angola.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what progress has been made by Her Majesty's Government in encouraging African intermediaries to promote and facilitate national reconciliation in Angola;

  (2) whether Her Majesty's Government will act as an honest broker in bringing the MPLA-PT Government and UNITA together in a conference to promote national reconciliation in Angola;

  (3) whether his Department has had any contact with third parties to promote national reconciliation in Angola;

  (4) what assistance he will be giving to the organisation and supervision of free and fair elections in Angola.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We would welcome any move to establish internal peace in Angola which had the support of both sides. We believe, however, that African leaders in the region with whom we are in touch are best placed to mediate. It is not for us to prescribe how elections should be conducted in another sovereign state.

  Coventry Four
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) whether representatives of Her Majesty's Government corresponded with representatives of the South African Government of the question of the remanding of those persons known as the Coventry four on charges of breaching arms embargo regulations;

  (2) on what date representatives of the South African Government petitioned for the repatriation to South Africa of those persons known as the Coventry four;

  (3) what representations were made by the British Government to representatives of the South African Government on the question of action being taken in the case of those persons known as the Coventry four, following upon their repatriation to South Africa;

  (4) what representations were received by Her Majesty's Government from the South African embassy on the question of the remanding of those persons known as the Coventry four in March 1984;

  (5) in what way relations with Pretoria were affected following upon South Africa's refusal to co-operate with the British courts in the case of those persons known as the Coventry four;

  (6) how many summaries of developments on the inquiries by his Department into the case of those persons known as the Coventry four were written; and to whom they were despatched.

  Mrs. Chalker
  This matter was thoroughly aired in the House at the time. I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by the then Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 23 October 1984 at columns 559–69.

  South Africa
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the South African ambassador; and what matters were discussed.
  396
  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State last met the South African ambassador on 23 September. They discussed a range of issues of common interest.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications for the nuclear non-proliferation treaty of South Africa having the means and skills to build atomic weapons.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We would be seriously concerned by the acquisition of nuclear weapons by a non-nuclear weapon state. We continue to urge South Africa to remove the element of ambiguity in its position by acceding to the non-proliferation treaty and placing all its nuclear facilities under full scope International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards.

  Mr. Dassam Abu Sharif (Meeting)
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the meeting of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), with Mr. Dassam Abu Sharif on 9 December.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  This meeting was arranged after Mr. Abu Sharif agreed to make a public statement which met in full the conditions we have maintained since 1985 for ministerial contact with the PLO. This is an important step forward. I am arranging for copies of the agreed text and of the statement as delivered from memory by Mr. Abu Sharif to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Abu Sharif emphasised that the Palestinians were serious in seeking peace with Israel and that the decisions of the PNC in Algiers superseded the PLO charter. I welcomed this and his clarification of the PLO's recognition of Israel and opposition to all forms of terrorism and violence, which I hoped would be confirmed by Mr. Arafat's speech to the United Nations General Assembly in Geneva.

  We hope that the Government of Israel will respond constructively and now agree to attend an international conference on the basis of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Westminster Cemeteries
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what were the relevant facts which his Department became aware only after 23 November which led an official of his Department to telephone a Westminster City councillor to tell him to disregard the contents of a letter dated 23 November stating that his Department would not be making an inquiry into alleged fraud by companies which purchased land from Westminster council, or through whose hands ownership of land subsequently passed, related to Westminster cemeteries.

  Mr. Maude
  The relevant facts were media references to a report which might shed light on the affair. This was later identified as a report under section 15(3) of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 to Westminster city council by the auditor appointed by the Audit Commission. In the
  397
  telephone conversation to which the hon. Member refers, an official underlined the substance of the Department's letter of 23 November that whilst there were no grounds for a Companies Act investigation any further information would be considered on its merits.

  Insolvency Service
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many items of correspondence he has received about the work of the insolvency service since 1 July from hon. Members.

  Mr. Maude
  Fifty nine. Ministers have also received other correspondence which has, in part, concerned the work of the insolvency service.

  Exports
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the 10 largest markets for British exports with the percentage of United Kingdom exports given to each.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information is as follows:

  United Kingdom exports 12 months to October 1988

  Percentage of total exports

  United States of America

  13·1

  Federal Republic of Germany

  11·8

  France

  10·0

  Netherlands

  7·0

  Belgium-Luxembourg

  5·1

  Irish Republic

  5·0

  Italy

  5·0

  Spain

  3·1

  Sweden

  2·8

  Canada

  2·5

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Investment Services
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will outline the nature of the proposals relating to the operation in the United Kingdom of home country authorised investment firms and financial intermediaries in the investment services directive; when the directive will be considered by the Council of Ministers; and if it will fall to be considered by majority vote in the Council.

  Mr. Maude
  The European Commission is still preparing its proposal for a directive on investment services for consideration by the Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has consulted the Securities and Investments Board and the FIMBRA organisation about the implications of the investment services directive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  My Department is in regular contact with the Securities and Investments Board and FIMBRA on the range of matters of concern to them and will consult them on the investment services directive when a proposal has been presented to the Council of Ministers by the European Commission.

  Coventry Four
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will identify those firms 398
  that agreed to discuss the supply of arms to South Africa following upon discussions with those persons known as the Coventry four.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No.

  GATT
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the outcome of the mid-term meeting of the GATT Uruguay round in Montreal.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The task of the mid-term meeting which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and my right hon. and noble Friend attended was to consolidate the past two years' work of the Uruguay round and to lay down guidelines and frameworks for the second half of the negotiation. Substantial progress to this end was made on a number of the issues of particular concern to the United Kingdom. Detailed frameworks for further negotiations on liberalisation of trade in services, multilateral tariff reductions and strengthening of GATT procedures including dispute settlement were agreed on a provisional basis. There was also agreement to liberalise the import regime for tropical products. The European Community will put in place from 1 January 1989 tariff reductions on tropical products which can be implemented under the generalised scheme of references.

  Disappointingly, however, there was no agreement on a more detailed framework for negotiations on the reform of agriculture, despite substantial and positive efforts by the European Community, the Cairns group of agricultural exporting countries and others. The United States insisted on pressing for the total elimination of agricultural support by a time to be agreed. This was not acceptable to the Community, nor was it in the 1986 Punta del Este declaration which set the guidelines for the round. Nor was progress possible in negotiation on international trade in textiles, nor on the better protection of intellectual property. Since in those three cases agreement could not be achieved in Montreal it was decided to suspend the work there with a view to further negotiation in preparation for a meeting of senior trade policy officials in Geneva early in April. The objective then will be to endorse formally the agreements reached provisionally last week, and if possible to establish common ground on the way forward on the three issues in dispute at Montreal.

  It is disappointing that for the time being further progress could not be made on agriculture, but it is a suspension rather than a breakdown of negotiation, and over the coming months the Government will continue to work for a positive outcome. In other areas of importance to United Kingdom industry and commerce positive results have been secured. The Government will be working with our partners in the Community to resolve outstanding issues and to ensure that the gains made at Montreal are consolidated in April and that in the remaining two years of the Uruguay round continuing progress is made on the full range of issues covered by the negotiations.

  Textiles and Clothing (Exports)
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the current value of textile and clothing exports; and what proportions go to the European Community, Japan and the United States of America.
  399
  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information is in the following table:

  United Kingdom textile and clothing exports1

  12 months to October 1988

  £ million

  Per cent. of total

  Total

  3,356

  100

  European Community

  1,882

  56

  Japan

  172

  5

  USA

  303

  9

  1Standard International Trade Classification Divisions 65 and 84.

  Source:Overseas Trade Statistics.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Key
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what steps the Church Commissioners are taking to assist the churches in adjusting to the introduction of the Community charge.

  Mr. Alison
  The commissioners are closely consulting dioceses about what charges would be desirable in the stipends arrangements of the clergy when they and their spouses become liable to pay a personal community charge in 1990. Because most of the clergy have hitherto lived in their accommodation free of rates, the commissioners hope to make substantial additional sums available for stipends in 1990 to reflect the extra costs which will fall on them.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Nurses
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether all nurses in East Antrim hospitals have been notified of their new grading.

  Mr. Needham
  Yes.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many nurses are employed in East Antrim hospitals; and how many are in each grade at present.

  Mr. Needham
  There are 420·82 whole-time equivalent nursing staff employed in East Antrim hospitals. The numbers in each grade at present are as follows:

  Grade

  Whole-time equivalent

  A

  70·09

  C

  90·51

  D

  96·73

  E

  97·83

  F

  22·66

  G

  33·00

  H

  7·00

  I

  3·00

  Total

  420·82

  Sewage Disposal
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money will be made available 400
  to Northern Ireland as part of the amount announced by the Secretary of State for the Environment for improving the coastal sewage disposal systems throughout the United Kingdom over the next four years.

  Mr. Needham
  None. The accelerated programme of capital improvement for sewage treatment works announced by the Secretary of State for the Environment relates only to England and Wales.

  Mr. Ronald Allen
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State responsible for education will reply to the letter of 7 October from Mr. Ronald Allen of "Roalan", Lower Ballo road, Groomsport BT19 2LU.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A reply was issued on 8 November, signed by my private secretary.

ENVIRONMENT

  Yorkshire Water Authority
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wakefield on 28 November, he will give the reasons for his conclusion that the information supplied to his Department by the Yorkshire water authority in its annual return for 1987 detailing the discharge and monitoring of list one substances does not constitute a breach of the relevant European Community directives governing discharges of these substances.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is going to take against Yorkshire water authority for breaching the European directives for mercury and cadmium being found in river sediment in addition to breaches for the pesticide lindane; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I apologise to the hon. Member that only the first paragraph of the five-paragraph answer which I had prepared was given to him. The full answer should have read as follows:

  On the basis of the periodic returns supplied by Yorkshire water authority, the Department does not consider that the requirements of the relevant European Community directives governing discharges of these substances have been breached. Measures taken by Yorkshire water authority have resulted in considerable reductions in the discharge of mercury and cadmium in recent years, and all authorised discharges meet the requirements of the relevant directives. The directives also specify that concentrations of these substances in sediments must not increase significantly with time, and again the monitoring carried out by Yorkshire water authority demonstrates a general downward trend, although because of the persistence of these substances some time lag can be expected before the improvements in water concentrations show up fully in improved sediment concentrations.

  The 1987 sediment monitoring results do show a small increase in the mercury concentration at one location, but this is not considered to be significant against the overall trend at that location since 1984. The 1986 sediment monitoring results also showed an increase over the

  401
  previous year in the measurement of cadmium at one location, but the 1987 results shows no further increase, and it is too early to establish a reliable trend. In neither case is the increase believed to be due to the effects of any current discharge, but future results at these locations will be monitored carefully and appropriate action taken if any significant upward trend should emerge.

  The levels of lindane in some Yorkshire rivers have been a matter of concern, though these are due largely to past use of this highly persistent pesticide. The Department receives regular reports from Yorkshire water authority about its programmes to eliminate any remaining sources of pollution and is satisfied with the considerable efforts that the authority has made.

  There has been a steady decline in the concentration of lindane at all monitoring points in recent years, and this trend is expected to continue. The latest data supplied by Yorkshire water authority indicate that the quality standard in the relevant European Community directive is now exceeded at only one monitoring point, and the concentration here is expected to fall within the standard in the near future. The water authority has not identified any current source or user of lindane whose discharge could be linked to this particular reading. However, they are continuing to monitor the position and to search for any possible unknown sources.

  Conservation (Staffordshire)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the amount of nature conservation work carried out by the voluntary sector on water authority land in Staffordshire.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have no information on this, but I suggest that the hon. Member contacts the Severn Trent water authority.

  Rents
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish for(a) Great Britain, (b) England and (c) each region, the average of local authority rents and fair rents registered for unfurnished dwellings, for each year since 1979, indicating the percentage in each year on annual and cumulative basis.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have today laid in the Library tables giving the available information at national and regional levels.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish his Department's proposed timetable for publishing further material relating to the community charge, giving the manner and type of publication and the amounts budgeted both in total and by individual category; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I am completing consideration of these arrangements and shall be making an announcement shortly.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the amounts to be allowed to each local authority in(a) England and (b) Wales to meet the setting up costs of the community charge,
  402
  indicating in each case the division between specific and block grant, and where available the local authorities' estimates of the costs involved.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In England capital allocations totalling £25 million in respect of expenditure in 1988–39 were announced on 13 April. A list of individual authorities' allocations was placed in the Library on that date. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 21 October that a further allocation of £135 million would be made for 1989–90. Individual allocations from this total will shortly be made.

  My right hon. Friend also announced on 21 October that half the provision of £110 million included in the 1989–90 rate support grant settlement for the current costs of preparing for the community charge will be met through a specific grant. A list showing individual authorities' share of this £55 million specific grant was placed in the Library on that date. The remaining half of the expenditure will be supported by rate support grant in the normal way.

  We do not have comprehensive figures for local authorities' own estimates of these costs. The capital allocation of £135 million for 1989–90 was derived from the mid point of the range forecast for England in the Price Waterhouse report published in June this year. The provision of £110 million for current costs is also in line with the estimate made in that respect and is higher than the equivalent figure then postulated by local authority associations.

  The information requested in respect of Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Crichel Down Rules
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to make mandatory the Crichel Down rules on the disposal of Government property; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  It is already Government policy that the Crichel Down rules will be applied to all disposals of Government property falling within the terms of Department of the Environment circular 18/84 (Welsh Office circular 37/84). The general principles underlying these rules and procedures are commended to local authorities and other public bodies.

  Listed Buildings
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many areas of the United Kingdom have still not been surveyed for the purpose of revising the statutory lists of buildings of special architectural or historical significance; how many people are currently employed to do this work; and how long it will be before the revised list is completed.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Southwell (Nottinghamshire), West Mailing (Kent) and the Isles of Scilly and Lundy have not yet been resurveyed; a further five areas are in the process of being resurveyed. English Heritage and the Department of the Environment each employ seven people in the exercise, which will be completed by spring 1989.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what conclusions as to the disposal costs of high-level radioactive waste arisings were reached by recent studies commissioned by his Department; and if this cost includes the present and future storage of the high-level waste and the vitrification of the waste.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Accurate cost estimates are not possible as high-level waste will not be disposed of for at least 50 years. An indicative estimate is in the order of £500 per litre, exclusive of the costs of storage and vitrification.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a copy of his Department's report on Magnox fuel dry storage and direct disposal, assessment of the Central Electricity Generating Board/South of Scotland Electricity Board reports; and if he will make a statement about the report's estimate of the cost of disposing of(a) high-level and (b) intermediate and low-level nuclear waste.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A copy of the report was placed in the Library on 26 May 1988. For high-level wastes, accurate cost estimates are not possible as waste in this category will not be disposed of for at least 50 years. The report gives an indicative estimate of £500 per litre.

  The costs estimated in the report of the disposal of low and intermediate-level wastes are consistent with the costs currently estimated by UK Nirex Ltd. which are:
  Intermediate-level wastes—Land based deep repository £2,000-£7,000 per cubic metre.
  Low-level wastes—Deep repository £750-£2,000 per cubic metre.

  Bid

  Allocation

  Spend

  New Build

  Conversion

  (£million)

  (units)

  1983–84

  74·675

  35·103

  40·189

  121

  49

  1984–85

  72·806

  34·449

  49·165

  80

  —

  1985–86

  103·227

  29·319

  31·899

  42

  —

  1986–87

  121·397

  29·486

  64·259

  135

  75

  1987–88

  121·641

  26·307

  67·336

  90

  —

  1988–89

  104·226

  27·009

  —

  —

  —

  In addition the council reported 18,292 dwellings renovated or improved between 1 April 1983 and 31 March 1988.

  Unused Land
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of unused land, currently listed on the register, belong to(a) water authorities, (b) the electricity industry, (c) the Ministry of Defence and (d) the Property Services Agency.

  Mr. Trippier
  The following are the amounts of unused and underused land on the land registers at 30 November 1988 for these owners:

  Acres

  Water authorities

  2,231

  Electricity industry

  2,952

  Ministry of Defence

  617

  Property Services Agency

  936

  Local Authorities (Shareholdings)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to restrict local authorities from holding shares in publicly quoted companies.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Our proposals are set out in the consultation papers issued earlier this year: "Local authorities' interests in Companies" (especially paragraphs 31 and 32) and "Local Government in England and Wales: Capital Expenditure and Finance" (especially paragraphs A.37 and A.38). These proposals will not apply to the investment of superannuation funds or of charitable funds of which the local authority is trustee. Copies of the consultation papers are in the Library of the House.

  Housing (Islington)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what have been the housing investment programme bids and the amounts allocated to the London borough of Islington for each year since 1983; how many new dwelling units have been constructed and rehabilitated for each year, and how many new dwellings have been added to the authority's stock as a result.

  Mr. Trippier
  Local authorities are able to supplement their allocations by the use of capital receipts and we would expect them to spend more on rehabilitation than on new construction. The bids, allocations and total spend; and new build and net additions by conversion reported by Islington council are as follows:

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate by how much the public debt would be reduced if all public unused land currently listed on the register was realised on the open market.

  Mr. Trippier
  At 30 November 1988 there were throughout England 8,134 sites on the land registers, covering 85,200 acres. The value obtainable for all these sites would depend on numerous site-specific and external factors which vary widely. It is therefore not possible to make any realistic estimate of how much would be realised if all the sites on the land registers were sold.

  Disposal Notices
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many directions he has made under the Local Government Act as amended by way of disposal orders in each of the last three years; and if he will list in tabular form the acreage involved and the location.

  Mr. Trippier
  The statutory procedures leading to the issue of a direction require a notice of the proposed direction to be given. In many cases, the issue of the notice
  405
  is sufficient to get the land brought into use or sold. Over 200 notices were issued in the last three years, and in some cases, were followed up by directions, as shown in the table below.

  Number of directions

  Acres

  1986

  14

  49

  1987

  25

  148

  11988

  13

  73

  Total

  52

  270

  1 To end of November.

  Location and acreage of directions issued

  District

  Number of sites

  Acres

  Amber Valley

  1

  5

  Barking and Dagenham

  1

  10

  Barrow in Furness

  2

  7

  Blackburn

  1

  14

  Blackpool

  1

  3

  Bolton

  1

  1

  Bristol

  1

  9

  Broadland

  1

  1

  Burnley

  1

  1

  Bury

  1

  10

  Charnwood

  2

  15

  Cheltenham

  1

  7

  Doncaster

  2

  25

  Dudley

  2

  8

  Durham

  1

  10

  Greenwich

  2

  3

  Harrow

  1

  1

  Hounslow

  1

  7

  Kingston upon Hull

  4

  22

  Kingston upon Thames

  1

  4

  Kirklees

  2

  7

  Lambeth

  1

  2

  Leeds

  1

  2

  Macclesfield

  2

  19

  Manchester

  1

  15

  Mansfield

  1

  2

  Middlesbrough

  1

  4

  North Hertfordshire

  1

  1

  Pendle

  1

  1

  Rotherham

  1

  16

  Sheffield

  1

  1

  South Ribble

  1

  3

  Southwark

  2

  3

  Stoke

  1

  1

  Sunderland

  1

  7

  Sutton

  2

  3

  Tower Hamlets

  1

  5

  Wigan

  1

  4

  York

  2

  14

  Total

  52

  270

  1 These sites were less than half an acre.

  Electrical Transformers
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any proposals to control the disposal of obsolete or redundant electrical transformers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Disposal of electrical transformers is controlled under part 1 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Where they contain polychlorinated biphenyls, they are also subject to the Special Waste Regulations 1980. A code of practice for the disposal of PCBs is contained in Waste Management Paper No 6.

  South Wiltshire Structure Plan
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce modifications to the south Wiltshire structure plan following his examination in public.

  Mr. Chope
  I will do so soon.

  Commissioner for Local Administration
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what administrative redress is available from him to a complainant, against a decision of a local authority when the Commissioner for Local Administration has ruled in a council's favour and against the complainant.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  None: the commisioner far Local Administration (the local ombudsman) is independent of both local authorities and central Government.

  Radon Gas
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (I) if he will consider reducing the action level of radon gas attracting grant aid by 50 per cent. to 200 bq/cu m measured by an approved laboratory following a 12-month continuous survey; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will consider when recommending new action levels for radon gas, setting the same level for domestic and occupational exposure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The action level for radon was recommended by the National Radiological Protection Board. The board has a statutory responsibility to advise Government on matters of radiological protection. They are keeping the level under review. Any recommendation from the board to reduce levels would be considered very carefully. The responsibility for administering regulatory controls on occupational exposure to radon rests with the Health and Safety Executive, which is also advised by the board.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider an extension to the provisions of mandatory house renovation grants to include all dwellings with radon levels above the action level irrespective of their age or their ability to meet the other qualifying condition of grant aid for housing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  No.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider producing advice and guidance for local authorities on the administrative procedures to be adopted when giving grants for work in dwellings with levels of radon above the action level as proposed by the Institution of Environmental Health Officers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  My Department wrote on 30 November to the local authority associations inviting their comments on draft guidance on the way in which authorities might consider applications for improvement grants toward the cost of radon remedial work. We await their comments.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider the inclusion within
  407
  any forthcoming legislation on housing, reference to external factors that may affect the internal environment of the dwelling caused by poisonous substances including radon gas, methane from refuse tips or contamination from industrial operations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  We are considering the scope of the work which will be eligible for grant aid under our proposals for legislation to reform the improvement grant system.

  Ministerial Vehicles
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will detail by make and model the vehicles allocated to each of the Ministers in his Department.

  Mr. Chope
  Ministers in the Department of Environment have been allocated vehicles as follows:

  Secretary of State—Rover 827

  Minister for Local Government—Austin Rover Montego

  Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside—Ford Sierra Sapphire

  Minister for Water and Planning—Austin Rover Montego

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Mr. Trippier)—Austin Rover Montego

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Mr. Chope)—Austin Rover Montego (temporarily allocated a Rover Fastback 820 on trial)

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Mrs. Bottomley)—Vauxhall Cavalier

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (The Hon. Colin Moynihan)—Ford Sierra Sapphire

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if there exists any hierarchy in terms of vehicle allocation for Secretaries of State, Ministers of State and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries.

  Mr. Chope
  Cabinet Ministers, unless security reasons demand otherwise, are allocated Austin Rover 820 series vehicles. Other Ministers are allocated Austin Rover Montegos, or equivalent models.

  Tidy Britain Group
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the particular reasons for the

  Title

  Date issued

  Date consultation closes/closed

  Number issued

  Responses received

  Available in Library?

  Summary available through Library?

  Proposed Amendment to Public Rights to Inspect Local Authorities' Accounts and Associated Records

  9 July 1987

  9 October 1987

  65

  35

  No

  No

  The National Rivers Authority: The Government's Proposals for a public regulatory body in a privatised water industry

  16 July 1987

  15 October 1987

  1,825

  355

  Yes

  No

  Non-domestic Rates: Amendments to the Rating Legislation in England and Wales

  31 July 1987

  18 September 1987

  200

  270

  No

  Yes

  Finance for Housing Associations

  18 September 1987

  31 October 1987

  2,500

  273

  Yes

  No

  Competition in the Management of Local Authority Sport and Leisure Facilities

  28 September 1987

  11 December 1987

  500

  350+

  Yes

  No

  The Private Rented Sector: Legislative Proposals

  2 October 1987

  31 October 1987

  475

  232

  Yes

  No

  Right to Buy: Legislative Proposals

  2 October 1987

  31 October 1987

  20

  200

  Yes

  No

  Deregulation of the Private Rented Sector: Implications for Housing Benefit

  6 October 1987

  31 October 1987

  375

  115

  Yes

  No

  Housing Action Trusts

  8 October 1987

  6 November 1987

  800

  126

  Yes

  No

  Tenants' Choice: An explanatory paper

  1 November 1987

  4 December 1987

  1,200

  212

  Yes

  No

  Competition in the Provision of Local Authority Services

  2 November 1987

  31 January 1988

  675

  267

  Yes

  No

  Home Improvement Policy

  5 November 1987

  4 January 1988

  500

  307

  Yes

  No

  408
  selection of the Al-Grantham service area as one of the experimental projects currently being carried out by the Tidy Britain Group.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Grantham service area, being on a trunk road as opposed to a motorway, was chosen by the Tidy Britain Group to enable comparisons to be drawn with a similar project being undertaken on the Keele motorway service area. The hon. Gentleman may approach the Tidy Britain Group for more information.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements exist within his Department to keep London local authorities informed of progress in meeting the standards of directive 80/778/EEC.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Specific arrangements have not been established as London boroughs have a duty to ascertain the wholesomeness of drinking water in their respective areas.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which areas of London fail to meet the standards set out in the European Community drinking water directive 80/778/EEC.

  Mr. Moynihan
  There are no drinking water supplies to areas of London regularly exceeding the standards set in the EC drinking water directive.

  Consultation Papers
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the consultation papers issued by his Department during this Parliament giving for each: the numbers issued, the date of issue, the date consultation closes/closed, the number of responses received and whether they are available in the Library; if summaries of responses are available; and whether additional publicity materials were developed, and at what cost.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 25 November 1988]: The information the hon. Gentleman has requested is given in the table:
  409

  Title

  Date issued

  Date consultation closes/closed

  Number issued

  Responses received

  Available in Library?

  Summary available through Library?

  Paying for Local Government—Appeals and valuation and Community Charge Tribunals

  10 November 1987

  18 December 1987

  675

  122

  No

  Yes

  Competition for Education-Related Activities Following Abolition of ILEA

  14 November 1988

  31 January 1989

  250

  Not yet known

  No

  Uses of Rateable Values in Housing and Building Legistration

  23 December 1987

  31 March 1988

  175

  155

  Yes

  No

  Local Government (Superannuation and Compensation) (Amendment) Regulations 1988

  7 January 1988

  29 January 1988

  550

  57

  No

  No

  London Government Reorganisation (Non-domestic Mortgages) Order

  8 January 1988

  29 January 1988

  35

  25

  No

  No

  Environmental Assessment: Implementation of EC Directive

  26 January 1988

  25 March 1988

  550

  164

  Yes

  No

  Consolidation of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order

  4 February 1988

  7 April 1988

  460

  211

  Yes

  No

  Local Government Bill—Race Relations Matters

  9 February 1988

  29 February 1988

  75

  70

  Yes

  No

  Portable Antiquities

  11 February 1988

  30 April 1988

  225

  111

  Yes

  No

  Section 5 of the Housing and Planning Act 1986: Loans in respect of service Charges and the Housing (Right to Buy) (Mortage Costs) Order

  19 February 1988

  15 April 1988

  10

  7

  No

  No

  City Grant: Simplification of Urban Grants

  7 March 1988

  8 April 1988

  2,000

  119

  Yes

  Yes

  Local Authority Building Control Fees

  8 March 1988

  15 April 1988

  50

  21

  No

  No

  Local Government Act 1988: Contract Periods and Financial Objectives

  20 April 1988

  31 May 1988

  230

  197

  Yes

  No

  London Government Reorganisation (Property) Order 1988

  9 May 1988

  3 June 1988

  40

  10

  No

  No

  Draft National Code of Practice on the use of Sewage Sludge in Agriculture

  19 May 1988

  1 September 1988

  400

  28

  No

  No

  Planning Control Enforcement Notice Appeals—Efficiency Scrutiny and Action Plan

  26 May 1988

  26 August 1988

  25

  121

  No

  No

  Local Authorities' Interests in Companies

  13 June 1988

  30 July 1988

  900

  200+

  No

  No

  London Government Reorganisation (Hampstead Heath) Order

  14 June 1988

  1 August 1988

  85

  36

  No

  No

  Disputes about Valuations under the Leasehold Reform Act

  23 June 1988

  30 September 1988

  50

  23

  No

  No

  Building Regulations—Parts G, H, and J

  28 June 1988

  28 October 1988

  225

  223

  Yes

  No

  Housing in Rural Areas: Village Housing and New Villages

  5 July 1988

  26 September 1988

  800

  210

  Yes

  No

  The LRB: Disposal of Remaining Housing Mortgages

  5 July 1988

  1 August 1988

  65

  7

  No

  No

  Capital Expenditure and Finance

  7 July 1988

  7 October 1988

  2,800

  404

  No

  No

  Houses in Multiple Occupation

  18 July 1988

  1 September 1988

  1,250

  221

  Yes

  No

  Building Regulations—Parts F and L

  20 July 1988

  28 October 1988

  280

  130

  Yes

  No

  New Financial Regime for Local Authority Housing in England and Wales

  27 July 1988

  7 October 1988

  1,400

  300+

  No

  No

  Integrated Pollution Control

  28 July 1988

  31 October 1988

  2,350

  94

  No

  No

  The Future Funding of Housing Association Hostels and Special Needs Projects

  28 July 1988

  30 September 1988

  875

  151

  Yes

  Yes

  Part III Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980; Competition for Building and Maintenance Work

  28 July 1988

  31 October 1988

  630

  185

  Yes

  No

  Inputs of Dangerous Substances to Water: Proposals for a United System of Control

  28 July 1988

  30 October 1988

  500

  81

  No

  No

  Review of Planning Control Enforcement Powers

  1 August 1988

  30 September 1988

  65

  121

  No

  No

  Right to Buy: Proposed revision of the Housing (Right to Buy) (Prescribed Persons)Order 1984

  5 August 1988

  30 August 1988

  20

  11

  No

  No

  Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960: Model Standards

  12 August 1988

  31 October 1988

  40

  26

  No

  No

  New Towns Housing Transfer

  23 August 1988

  21 October 1988

  225

  24

  No

  No

  Sale Licensing for Butterflies

  15 September 1988

  30 September 1988

  90

  30

  No

  No

  Control of Pollution (Landed Ships' Waste) Regulations

  4 October 1988

  28 October 1988

  40

  18

  No

  No

  Zoo Licensing Act

  18 October 1988

  None given

  120

  37

  No

  No

  Draft Regulations on the Administration of the Community Charge

  28 October 1988

  23 December 1988

  35

  Not yet known

  No

  No

  Access to Housing Authority Tenants' Records

  28 October 1988

  25 November 1988

  85

  Not yet known

  No

  No

  Competition in the Management of Local Authority Sport and Leisure Facilities: The Local Government (Competition in Sport and Leisure Facilities) Order

  14 November 1988

  13 January 1989

  250

  Not yet known

  No

  No

  Preserved Right to Buy: Regulations under Section 171C of the Housing Act 1985

  21 November 1988

  20 January 1989

  10

  Not yet known

  No

  No

  410 411

  Title

  Date issued

  Date consultation closes/closed

  Number issued

  Responses received

  Available in Library?

  Summary available through Library?

  Waste Disposal Law Amendments: Follow-up Consultation Paper

  23 November 1988

  23 January 1989

  180

  Not yet known

  No

  No

  Proposed Amendments to the Boundary between Domestic and Non-domestic property in the Local Government Finance Act

  1 December 1988

  31 January 1988

  210

  Not yet known

  No

  No

  Sewers
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the approximate mileage of sewers, currently the property of regional water authorities, that are serviced and maintained by locally elected councils.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 7 December 1988]: This information is not available.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make arrangements to enable local authorities which currently service and maintain sewers under contract to regional water authorities to become exclusive contractors to their successor bodies.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 7 December 1988]: No.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with representatives of local authorities concerning the future servicing and maintenance of sewers which are currently the property of regional water authorities.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 7 December 1988]: The Government issued a consultation paper on the future of sewerage agency arrangements in November 1986, and invited comments from a range of interested organisations. Among those who responded were the Association of District Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, NALGO, and the Water Authorities Association. The subject has also been raised since then in discussions between Ministers and the ADC.

  Defective Dwellings
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when and how residents of the Galleys Bank estate in Kidsgrove were issued with statutory notices under section 563 of the Housing Defects Act.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 8 December 1988]: Section 563 of the Housing Act 1985 requires public sector bodies selling designated properties to notify the purchaser, specifying the qualifying defect and stating that no assistance will be available under the housing defects legislation. We understand that purchasers at Galleys Bank estate, Kidsgrove were not notified by British Coal until October 1986.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he will take to make sure that those residents who purchased their homes from a private owner, and who had no means of knowing that their homes were classified as defective under section 563 of the Housing Defects Act at the time of purchase, could be made eligible for grant aid under the Act.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 8 December 1988]: We have no plans to amend the housing defects legislation in
  412
  this respect; the 12-month period of grace following the cut-off date, provided for by the Act, should have allowed sufficient time for knowledge of the defects to reach all those involved with the buying and selling of properties.

  Water
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average annual domestic water bill at constant prices deflated by the retail prices index in 1979, 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 8 December 1988]: The information requested by the hon. Member is presented in the following table. The RPI deflator for 1988–89 is based on the Autumn Statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Average domestic water bill at constant (1987–88) prices and deflated by the RPI.

  1979–80

  1987–88

  1988–89

  £

  £

  £

  72·88

  98·81

  101·11

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan on 5 December,Official Report, column 16, he will set out functions of water authorities for which development is and will be allowed in their land.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 8 December 1988]: Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning General Development Order (SI No. 1813/1988) contains general permissions which may apply to water authority land. In addition, parts 10, 14, 15, 16 and 17 (class E) of schedule 2 all specify particular kinds of development for which the GDO grants general permission, unconditionally or subject to specified conditions, and which may be particularly relevant to water authorities. If a water authority's development proposal requires specific planning permission, the application will be determined on its merits by the local planning authority.

  Rates
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the rate increase for Leeds city council for 1989–90, assuming expenditure by the council at the Government's grant-related expenditure allocation level; and what is his estimate of the corresponding increase for Bradford city council on the same assumptions, based on the information contained in the rate support consultation paper for 1989–90 issued on 11 November.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 8 December 1988]: We estimate that, if Leeds city council's total expenditure for 1989–90 were to equal its GRE, and the

  413
  council use the same amount of balances as in 1988–89, its rate increase for 1989–90 would be 12 per cent. We estimate that for Bradford the corresponding figure would be a rate decrease of 12 per cent.

  Local Government Commissioners (Rulings)
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek powers to enable him to consider cases where the decision of a local government commissioner in ruling on a case appears to a constituent to be at variance with a previous decision.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 9 December 1988]; No. It is essential that the independence of the Commissioners for Local Administration in carrying out investigations is retained.

  Water Authorities
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the area of land sold by each water authority in England as being surplus to operational requirements for each year since 1983.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 9 December 1988]: The acres of land disposed by English water authorities from the Land Register each year from 1984 are as follows:

  Size in acres

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Anglian

  10

  178

  70

  15

  44

  Northumbrian

  3

  17

  3

  16

  3

  North West

  8

  5

  1

  12

  9

  Severn Trent

  2

  —

  27

  —

  —

  Southern

  4

  —

  —

  —

  16

  South West

  2

  21

  10

  21

  —

  Thames

  7

  44

  —

  65

  53

  Wessex

  6

  —

  10

  —

  —

  Yorkshire

  —

  9

  —

  —

  32

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the value of the land sold by each water authority in England for each year since 1983.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 9 December 1988]: Receipts from the sale of fixed assets are published in the water authorities' annual reports. Copies are available from the Library.

  Darenth Park and Swan Farm
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he is likely to issue his decision on the Darenth park site and the Swan farm planning inquiries.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 9 December 1988]: My right hon. Friend hopes to issue his decisions shortly.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much his Department intends to spend on measures to combat water pollution in the north-west area between now and the proposed privatisation of the water industry.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Water pollution is usually the result of industrial or agricultural activities or unsatisfactory discharges of sewage effluent. The North West water 414
  authority is responsible for sewage effluent discharges within its area and is engaged in major programmes to replace inadequate and outdated sewerage systems and to upgrade its sewage treatment works. The costs of these programmes are still being drawn up. Expenditure on measures to reduce the impact of industrial and agricultural discharges will be borne by the dischargers in line with the polluter pays principle.

THE ARTS

  Libraries
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many replies to his financing libraries Green Paper(a) support and (b) oppose his proposals; and when he expects to make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  Most of the 7,000 respondents neither directly supported nor opposed the proposals as a whole. Six respondents supported all the recommendations; 106 rejected them all. As I said on 7 November in reply to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) at column 14, I intend to make a statement in due course.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Foreign Office (Disbursements)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will provide the most convenient breakdown of the disbursements made by his Department to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the last financial year.

  Mr. Luce
  The total of disbursements made by my Department to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 1987–88 was £209,756.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Taxation Offences
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what progress has been made on investigations into alleged offences under the Taxes Management Act 1970 and the Taxes Act 1988 in respect of Messrs. Lewis and Tucker of 16 Hanover square, London W1;

  (2) what progress has been made on investigations into alleged offences under the Taxes Management Act 1970 and the Taxes Act 1988 in respect of Wisland Investment Group Ltd;

  (3) what progress has been made on investigations into alleged offences under the Taxes Management Act 1970 and the Taxes Act 1988 in respect of Bestwood Property Ltd;

  (4) what progress has been made on investigations into alleged offences under the Taxes Management Act 1970 and the Taxes Act 1988 in respect of Chelwood Holdings Ltd;

  (5) what progress has been made on investigations into alleged offences under the Taxes Management Act 1970 and the Taxes Act 1988 in respect of Royal Investments Ltd;
  415
  (6) what progress has been made on investigations into alleged offences under the Taxes Management Act 1970 and the Taxes Act 1988 in respect of Platemede Ltd.;

  (7) what progress has been made on investigations into alleged offences under the Taxes Management Act 1970 and the Taxes Act 1988 in respect of Cemetery Assets UK Ltd.;

  (8) what progress has been made on investigations into alleged offences under the Taxes Management Act 1970 and the Taxes Act 1988 in respect of Clive Warren Lewis of Lewis and Tucker, of 16 Hanover square, London W1.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Such information is confidential.

  Earned Income
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate women's earned income as a percentage of total earned income for the years 1958, 1960, 1970, 1980, and the latest available figure.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information is for years ending on 5 April. For single women, estimates are confined to those with total income above the PAYE threshold, and for married women, to those where the combined total income of husband and wife is above the threshold. For the years 1980–81, and the latest readily available year, 1985–86, earned income is net of superannuation contributions. I regret that information for 1958–59 and 1960–61 is not available. The nearest years for which an estimate can be compiled are shown in the table:

  Women's earned income as a percentage of total earned income

  Per cent.

  1954–55

  16

  1962–63

  15

  1970–71

  20

  1980–81

  22

  1985–86

  26

  Taxation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a breakdown of the marital status of those caught in the poverty and employment traps; what effect his proposals for the separate taxation of husbands and wives will have on the numbers caught in each trap; and whether he will publish in the Official Report figures for his revised proposals corresponding to those in chart 3.2 of Cmnd. 9756 on the Green Paper basis and on the present basis together with the number of low-earning households which will be worse off than at present as a result of the restriction on the transfer of any part of the husband's personal allowance to the wife.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The number of families in the poverty and unemployment traps is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. The introduction of independent taxation will have a negligible effect on the number of families in either trap in 1990–91.

  An update of the figures underlying chart 3.2 of Cmnd. 9756 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. There are transitional provisions which ensure that no married couple will suffer a cash reduction in their total tax allowances simply as a result of the change to independent taxation.
  416
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, further to paragraphs 12 and 13 of annex 4 to Comnd. 9756, he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the changes in the number paying tax and average gain or loss in each case as a result of his revised proposals at current rates of income tax.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  When independent taxation is introduced in April 1990, the number of higher rate taxpayers will fall to about 1 million and the provisions for wives' earnings elections will be withdrawn. Details of the average gains to individuals from the introduction of independent taxation were included in the Inland Revenue press release of 15 March 1988. Further estimates were provided to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) on 19 May at columns 574–76. I regret that further estimates could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the economic case for reducing income tax on investment income in the case of those with an income in excess of the ceiling below which there is an entitlement to income support; and if he will publish in the Official Report an estimate of the saving to the Revenue from increasing the tax on investment income by eight percentage points.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The reduction in tax rates in the 1988 Budget will have improved incentives for all taxpayers both to earn and to invest. A surcharge on investment income of 8 per cent. would yield just over £1·5 billion per annum at 1989–90 income levels. This estimate takes no account of any behavioural changes that would follow the introduction of the surcharge. The estimate is based on a projection of the 1985–86 survey of personal incomes and is therefore provisional.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report a table comparing the changes in the numbers paying tax and the average gain or loss in each case with his revised proposals at current rates of income and tax along the lines of paragraphs 9 and 11 of annex 4 Cmnd. 9756.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  When independent taxation is introduced in April 1990, the number of elderly married couples liable to income tax will fall by about 160,000. The reduction in the number of married couples of working age liable to tax will be small.

  Details of average gains from independent taxation, analysed by income, were included in the Inland Revenue press release of 15 March 1988. Further estimates were provided to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) on 19 May at columns 574–76.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will be reconsidering the use of negative taxation as set out by the Government of the day in 1972 in their White Paper on this subject; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  No.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the take-up of the tax cuts announced in his Budget; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The cut in the basic rate of income tax and the double indexation of personal
  417
  allowances benefited all 25 million income taxpayers. The abolition of all higher rates above 40 per cent. benefited the 1·6 million people who pay income tax at the higher rate. In addition, some 750,000 people were taken out of the income tax net altogether by the increase in personal allowances.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider introducing a scheme for gradually drawing back personal income tax alllowances on the lines of the present age allowance.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  No.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the number of unmarried couples eligible for two additional personal allowances, the number claiming two allowances, and the estimated saving to the Exchequer from reducing their entitlement to one additional allowance in 1989–90.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  We estimate that about 20,000 unmarried couples may be affected by the change made in section 30 of the Finance Act 1988 restricting unmarried couples with children to only one additional personal allowance between them. There should be a small tax yield of around £5 million.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, in advocating the conversion of

  Starting rates of income tax (percentages)

  United Kingdom: 1969–70

  United Kingdom: 1970–80

  United Kingdom: 1984–85

  United Kingdom: 1988–89

  Others: 1969

  Others: 1979

  Others: 1984

  Others: 1988

  United Kingdom

  30

  25

  30

  25

  Federal Republic of Germany

  19

  22

  22

  22

  Netherlands

  4

  20

  16

  14

  Belgium 1 2

  19·7

  20

  21·7

  24·2

  Denmark1

  18

  18

  14·4

  22

  France

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Japan1

  10

  10

  10·5

  10·5

  United States of America1

  14

  14

  11

  15

  1 Plus local income taxes at varying rates.

  2 For lower income levels a percentage figure is not quoted. The figures given are effective start rates estimated from the official tax table.

  Single Internal Market
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what types of potential problems of differing direct, indirect and corporate taxation rates have been raised with him, or with the Bank of England, arising from progress towards completion of the single internal market.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  We have received a number of representations about the tax system in relation to the completion of the single market. These have ranged from representations about maintaining VAT zero rates and about the levels of excise duties proposed by the European Commission to questions of the interaction of the United Kingdom tax system and the free internal market in areas of the financial sector. I have been unable to trace any representations about direct and corporate tax rates as such.

  Life Assurance
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the life assurance companies concerning the Inland Revenue review of life assurance; and if he will make a statement.
  418
  additional personal income tax allowance into one-parent and other benefits as suggested in paragraph 4.11 of Cmnd. 9756, he was also considering targeting the payment of one-parent and other benefits after the conversion of the additional personal allowance; to what extent the considerations set out in paragraphs 4.11 to 4.16 have been affected by his revised proposals for the separate taxation of husband and wife; and whether he has considered freezing, reducing or abolishing the additional personal allowance and/or one-parent allowance and/or child dependency addition to enable him to target the benefit to those families which he considers in most need of financial help.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to him on 5 December at column 54.

  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to the starting rates of income tax in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) Germany, (c) the Netherlands, (d) Belgium, (e) Denmark. (f) France, (g) Japan and (h) the United States of America, for (i) 1969–70, (ii) 1979–80, (iii) 1984–85 and (iv) 1987–88 or the last available year, in £ sterling.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I have received a number of substantial responses and I am studying them carefully. I will take account of all that has been said in coming to decisions on the future of the life assurance tax regime.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to close his consultation on his document, "The Taxation of Life Assurance"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I am currently considering responses to the Inland Revenue consultative document on the taxation of life assurance. There is much to digest before I can decide the best way forward and the extent of further consultation.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was(a) the growth in tax yield from life offices and (b) the growth in life assurance business between 1982 and 1987, measured by total funds, taxable funds and taxable income.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The figures requested are not available from official sources and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The Association of British Insurers in its response to the Inland Revenue consultative document on the taxation of life assurance offered
  419
  estimates of the growth rates described in the question based on a sample of life offices. I am sure that the association would let the hon. Member have details on request.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the effect on the tax threshold of a one-earner married couple with an income equal to that of the average earnings of an adult male manual worker; and how many additional adults and children would fall into the poverty and employment traps if child benefit were terminated.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The level of child benefit has no effect on the thresholds at which married couples become liable to income tax; these are determined solely by eligibility for personal tax allowances and reliefs. The

  1. Private Pensions

  Table

  Maximum tax-relievable contributions as percentage of earnings

  Employer

  Employee

  Maximum lump sum benefit

  Occupational Pension Schemes

  No limit 1

  152

  Lesser of 1·5 times final earnings or £150,0003

  Personal Pension Schemes

  17·54

  17·54

  Lesser of 25 Percent. of value of individual's benefits or £150,000

  Retirement Annuity5 Contracts

  None

  17·56

  Three times the annual annuity after communication7

  Notes:

  1 Employer contributions should not exceed the amount required to provide the benefits promised under the scheme rules, taking into account any employee contributions.

  2 The self-employed cannot be members of an occupational pension scheme.

  3 Lump sums normally accrue at 3/80ths of final earnings for each year of service, up to a maximum of 40 years, giving a maximum of 120/80ths. But maximum benefits may be given for 20 years' service to normal retirement age. Finance (No. 2) Act 1987 introduced a proportionate link between maximum pensions and lump sums for people joining pension schemes on or after 17 March 1987. The £150,000 ceiling does not apply to members who joined before that date.

  4 The limit of 17·5 per cent. applies up to the age of 50. The limit applies to aggregate contributions by employers and employees. For higher ages the contribution limits are:

  51–55 20 per cent.

  56–60 22·5 per cent.

  60–74 27·5 per cent.

  The same limits apply to contributions by self-employed people.

  5 Retirement annuity contracts were superseded by personal pensions on I July 1988, although contracts in existence on that date may continue.

  6 Contribution rates are identical to those for personal pension schemes.

  7 In relation to contracts issued on or after 17 March 1987 an upper limit of £150,000 applies to the lump sum.

  State pensions

  (a) State retirement pension: The state retirement pension consists of a basic pension, and, in some cases, an additional pension (the state earnings-related pension scheme—SERPS) and a graduated pension. All are funded from national insurance contributions. There is no tax relief for employees' contributions. Employers' contributions may be deducted from profits as a business expense.

  (b) Contracted-out personal pension schemes:
  When an employee uses a personal pension scheme to contract out of SERPS the tax treatment of his and his employer's national insurance contributions is the same as under SERPS. But the employee's share of the contributions—known as "minimum contributions"—paid to the personal pension scheme by the Department of Social Security (DSS) is grossed up at the basic rate of income tax.

  (c) Contracted-out occupational pension schemes:
  Contributions by employers and employees paid towards a "Guaranteed minimum pension (GMP)" or "protected rights" qualify for tax reliefs in the manner described in the table above. The GMP or protected rights represent under DSS legislation a minimum level of pension which be paid to
  420
  effect of the abolition of child benefit on the numbers in the poverty and unemployment trap is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

  Pensions
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish figures showing the different tax concessions for pension contributions, distinguishing between contributions to the state pension and to private pensions and between the maximum tax-deductible amounts or percentage that can be contributed by employees, employers and the self-employed, and also summarising the regulations regarding tax-free lump sums.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information is set out in the table:

  a scheme member by a contracted-out scheme. They are broadly equivalent to the amount of pension the member would have received under SERPS.

  (d) State pensions and those in substitution for them cannot be taken as lump sums.

  Trade Deficit
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the loss of revenue to the Exchequer as a result of the deficit of £14 billion in trade in manufactures.

  Mr. Major
  The effect of the deficit of trade in manufactures on Government revenues depends on what would otherwise have happened to a wide range of economic variables. Any estimates would be highly speculative and subject to wide margins of error. Even the direction of the effect is ambiguous. Revenues could be either higher or lower.

  Payroll Giving
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will indicate the level of public support for the payroll-giving scheme; and how much money has been donated to charities for each year since the introduction of the scheme to the latest available date.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many people participated in the payroll giving scheme in each of the past three years;

  (2) what total sums of money were distributed to charities through the payroll giving scheme in each of the past three years.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  In 1987–88, the first year of the payroll giving scheme, about 60,000 employees participated and £1 million was donated. These estimates are provisional. Information for 1988–89 is not yet available, but donations and the number of participants in the scheme are expected to be considerably higher than in the first year.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he will publish a list of charities who have benefited from the payroll giving scheme;

  (2) what arts charities have benefited under the payroll giving scheme in each of the past three years; and to what extent.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The extent to which all charities benefited from the payroll giving scheme in the year 1987–88, the first year of its operation, is estimated to be around £1 million. I am unable to supply details of individual charities which have benefited, because the information supplied to the Inland Revenue on individual charities is confidential.

  EC (Revenue)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all the sources of revenue for the EEC in 1988 along with the latest estimates of the amounts to be raised in pounds sterling.

  Mr. Brooke
  Information on the own resources figures in the Community budget is included in the "Statement on the 1988 Community Budget", Cm. 525, tables II and IIa. The Community also has miscellaneous items of revenue and, in 1988, benefited from a surplus carried forward from 1987. These additional items amount to some 811 mecu (£541 million). Table III of the statement provides a slightly more up-to-date estimate of what the United Kingdom is likely to pay this year.

  Civil Service (Leavers)
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to provide more scope for people who leave the Civil Service to return to it later in their careers.

  Mr. Brooke
  New arrangements come into force today by which former civil servants may be reappointed, at the discretion of the Civil Service Commissioners, at a grade higher than that occupied when they left the service, without the formality of an open competition. In the past it has only been open to former civil servants in such circumstances to return at the same or a lower grade than they previously occupied.
  422
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Privy Council Office and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs have approved an appropriate amendment to the Civil Service Commission General Regulations 1986 in respect of both the home Civil Service and Diplomatic Service.

  Tobacco Tax
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to the percentage of households paying more in tobacco tax than in income tax; and if he will conduct an inquiry into this area.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 1 December 1988]: Sufficiently reliable and up-to-date information is not available to provide an estimate of the numbers requested. While the Government have no plans to conduct an inquiry into this specific issue, tobacco duties are reviewed annually. Their levels are set to strike a careful balance between revenue requirements and health considerations.

  Growish Limited
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made on investigations into offences under the Taxes Management Act 1970 and the Taxes Act 1988 in respect of Growish Limited.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 5 December 1988]: I cannot comment on the tax affairs of an individual taxpayer.

  Pensioners
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what income tax is received from those over pensionable age by decile or quartile with respect to total numbers of people over pensionable age; and what is the median weekly income tax received from those over pensionable age.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 5 December 1988]: In 1988–89, about 2·6 million single people aged 65 or over and married couples in which at least one partner is 65 or over will be liable to income tax. This represents about one third of all elderly tax units. The median level of income tax taken over all such tax units is therefore nil. The level of income at the upper quartile point is about £100 per week and income tax paid is about £7 per week. The corresponding figures for the highest decile point are £200 and £25. The total income tax liability of elderly tax units is given in the table.

  Income tax liability of aged tax units 1988–89

  Quartile

  Tax units (thousand)

  £ billion

  Top 10 per cent.

  790

  3·1

  Next 15 per cent.

  1,185

  0·9

  Next 8 per cent.

  625

  0·2

  Remainder

  5,300

  —

  Total

  7,900

  4·2

  Estimates are based on a projection of the 1985–86 survey of personal incomes and are provisional.

  Privatisation (Advertising)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total cost of advertising the sale of shares in respect of each company privatised since 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 5 December 1988]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) on 3 March 1988 at column 629. This lists the cost to the Government of corporate and flotation advertising and advertising agency fees, exclusive of VAT, for each privatisation and residual share sale since the British Telecom sale of December 1984. Comparable figures for previous sales are not readily available.

  Disposable Income
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the average net disposable income after taking account of housing costs for each region of the United Kingdom in 1988.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 9 December 1988]: The latest available regional information on average per capita disposable income after taking into account housing costs is from the family expenditure surveys for 1985 and 1986. Data for 1985 and 1986 combined are:

  £ per person per week

  North

  50·12

  Yorkshire & Humberside

  50·14

  North West

  52·08

  East Midlands

  53·92

  West Midlands

  50·17

  East Anglia

  56·29

  Greater London

  67·72

  Rest of South East

  62·08

  South West

  57·99

  Wales

  52·41

  Scotland

  54·60

  Northern Ireland

  44·88

  United Kingdom

  55·85

  Housing costs consist of mortgage repayments, gross rent including owner occupiers' imputed rent, rates, water charges etc. less housing benefit, rebates and allowances.

  Pension Funds
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to permit or require pension funds to build up a margin of reserve against expected future liabilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 9 December 1988]: It is a matter for the trustees of individual pension funds to decide what reserves should be held against expected future liabilities.

  Pensions Holidays
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what proposals he has to review the practice of taking pensions holidays; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what proposals he has to extend to 20 years the period over which pension surpluses should be eliminated; and if he will make a statement;
  424
  (3) what proposals he has to abolish or restrict contribution holidays for employer sponsored occupational pension schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 9 December 1988]: I have no such proposals.

  Contracts (Tendering)
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government have made any study of the impact on British industry of the EEC draft directive requiring all companies in the private and public sectors to put out to tender contracts for supplies above £500,000 and capital schemes above £3,000,000; when he expects this draft directive to come into effect; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Major
  [holding answer 9 December 1988]: Recent proposals by the European Commission to extend rules on purchasing to bodies outside central and local government cover undertakings in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors which operate on the basis of special or exclusive rights or an authorisation granted by a competent authority of a member state. The rules are intended to make purchasing more open, but let undertakings negotiate with selected suppliers or contractors instead of putting contracts out to tender. Individual contracts would be affected when their estimated value, net of VAT, exceed £142,000 for supplies (and software service contracts in the case of the proposal on telecommunications) and £3·3 million for building and civil engineering works; supplies requirements which were expected to exceed £500,000 in a product area over 12 months would be the subject of periodic indicative notices.

  The proposals are part of the single market programme due to be completed in 1992. The Government are consulting closely with relevant purchasers and suppliers in the United Kingdom on possible changes to the proposals which would reduce any burdens the rules may impose. The rules should enable United Kingdom suppliers and contractors to compete more effectively in markets which in some cases have been difficult to enter.

  MIRAS
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total cost to the Treasury in terms of MIRAS of a 1 per cent. increase in mortgage lending rates.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 8 December 1988]: A one percentage point increase in gross mortgage interest rates would increase the cost of mortgage interest tax relief by about £450 million in a full year at 1988–89 levels. If other interest rates were also to change, there would be other effects on Government revenues.

  Fixed Capital Formation
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish general government gross domestic fixed capital formation, total gross domestic fixed capital formation, net general government fixed capital formation and net domestic fixed capital formation for each quarter of 1978, 1979, 1987 and 1988 at constant prices, specifying in each case which deflator has been used.
  425
  Mr. Major
  [holding answer 8 December 1988]: The latest constant price estimates together with the implied deflators are given in the tables. The net figures are available only on an annual basis.

  Gross domestic fixed, capital formation at constant 1985 prices, seasonally adjusted in £ million, together with the implied deflators1

  Year per Quarter

  Total

  Deflator for total (1985=100)

  General Government

  Deflator for General/Government (1985=100)

  1978 Q1

  13,957

  53·5

  1,994

  58·3

  Q2

  13,738

  55·4

  1,944

  59·2

  Q3

  13,629

  57·7

  1,931

  60·8

  Q4

  13,590

  59·7

  1,815

  64·2

  1979 Q1

  14,000

  60·3

  1,814

  65·3

  Q2

  13,216

  64·1

  1,813

  67·7

  Q3

  14,089

  66·8

  1,925

  70·4

  Q4

  15,145

  70·1

  1,797

  76·6

  1987 Q1

  15,455

  105·1

  1,754

  101·7

  Q2

  15,794

  109·6

  1,637

  100·6

  Q3

  16,175

  111·5

  1,630

  101·3

  Q4

  16,772

  112·8

  1,775

  103·0

  1988 Q1

  16,804

  116·2

  1,657

  104·9

  Q2

  17,445

  116·3

  1,563

  103·8

  Net domestic fixed capital formation at constant 1985 prices in £ million, together with the implied deflators1

  Year

  Total

  Deflator for total (1985=100)

  General Government

  Deflator for General Government (1985=100)

  1978

  20,587

  56·4

  4,606

  56·9

  1979

  21,250

  64·7

  4,208

  67·1

  1987

  20,546

  107·6

  4,057

  104·3

  1A large number of deflators are used in the calculation of capital formation at constant prices. The CSO's "United Kingdom National Accounts, Sources and Methods, 1985", Chapter 12, gives further details.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  UNICEF
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next proposes to meet representatives of UNICEF to discuss common priorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I hope to see Mr. Grant, the executive director of UNICEF, in March.

  Aid (Women)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to increase the number of staff in his Department responsible for monitoring the effect of aid projects on women.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Executive departments in the Overseas Development Administration are responsible for monitoring all aspects of projects, including their impact on women. The staffing of these departments is adequate to fulfil their full range of responsibilities. Professional advice available to the Department on social development issues has been significantly strengthened in the past year.

  European Community
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met his European Economic Community counterparts; and what was the content of the discussion.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I met them at the Development Council on 23 November. We agreed on the fundamental importance of food security and adopted a resolution which provides valuable guidelines on this. We discussed whether the Community's Asia/Latin America programme should be focused on the poorest countries and the progress made to date on renegotiating the Lomé convention. We also reviewed the Community's special programme of assistance for debt-distressed countries in sub-Saharan Africa, under which over £200 million has been allotted over the last year.

  Kampuchea
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's co-operation with British voluntary agencies in the provision of aid for Kampuchea.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I announced on 25 October an additional allocation of £500,000 to support projects, including humanitarian projects in Cambodia, proposed by British voluntary agencies for assistance under the joint funding scheme.

  Aid (Environmental Impact)
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether British overseas aid projects are scrutinised for environmental impact.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Aid managers in the Overseas Development Administration are required to ensure the environmental soundness of projects from the earliest stage to completion and evaluation. A new ODA manual to help project managers decide how much environmental assessment is required in each case is currently being field tested; over 50 international agencies and non-governmental organisations have been asked for their comments.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Ethiopia.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I visited Ethiopia from 6 to 9 November. The main purpose of my visit was to see the refugee camps in the Ogaden and on the Sudanese border. I also had talks with Ethiopian Ministers and officials and with representatives of the international and voluntary agencies. My main impression was of the appalling degree of human suffering which is being caused by the conflicts in Sudan and Somalia. We shall continue to do all we can to urge a peaceful resolution of these conflicts and, meanwhile, to ease the plight of the refugees.

  India
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total of overseas aid given to India between 1981 and the latest available year.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Gross British bilateral aid to India was £825 million for the calendar years 1981–87 inclusive.

  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent British is assisting the development of primary education in India.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We have carried out an innovative pilot project in four districts of the state of Andhra Pradesh providing a total of £1·3 million to construct 200 classrooms to new, improved designs and to train teachers and teacher educators in child-centred learning techniques. A recent appraisal mission has been looking at ways of extending the project to all 23 districts of Andhra Pradesh. We look forward to working with the state Government on this major undertaking.

  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was(a) Britain's and (b) other members of the OECD development assistance committee's net official development assistance disbursement to sub-Saharan Africa between 1980 and 1987.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Britain's net official bilateral development assistance to sub-Saharan Africa between 428
  1980 and 1987 amounted to $2·7 billion. In the same period disbursements by the other 17 DAC members totalled $44·8 billion.

  Aid (Distribution)
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy with regard to the geographical distribution of British overseas aid.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Policy on the geographical allocation of bilateral aid is governed principally by the needs of recipient countries, how effectively the aid can be used, what other donors are doing and the United Kingdom's historical links with many developing countries, particularly in the Commonwealth.

  Forestry
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British aid for forestry in developing countries.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Details of our existing forestry activities are given in a supplement to this month'sBritish Overseas Development, a copy of which I am placing in the Library. In future we will encourage recipient countries to direct more of our aid to forestry and will increase commitments through international research and British charities.

  Central African Federation
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to enable increased pensions to be paid to former public servants of the Central African Federation.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The Governments of Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi and the United Kingdom, as joint guarantors of the central African pension fund, have agreed that pension increases averaging 300 per cent. should be paid, with effect from 1 October 1988. The cost of financing these increases is approximately £9 million, which the trustees of the fund would like to see funded in sterling. In response to requests from the three African Governments, I have agreed that the British Government should meet the full cost of the increase.

  We are considering what further action is necessary to assist those central African pensioners whose pensions have been particularly eroded by currency depreciation.

  European Integration
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what assessment has been made by his Department of the effects of European economic integration in 1992 on the Third world; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The Commission in its statement of 19 October made clear that the single market should be seen as a contribution to the global liberalisation of trade. The economic growth resulting from completion of the Single Market should benefit Community and non-Community countries alike, including developing countries. We share this view. At their meeting in Rhodes, Heads of Government declared that Europe after 1992 will be a partner and not a "Fortress Europe".

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will make a statement on the current level of British aid to Bangladesh.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I expect total expenditure in the current financial year to exceed £50 million. This includes £7·5 million of emergency relief aid provided following the recent disastrous floods.

  Bilateral Aid
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the use of British bilateral aid to bring political trade or military advantages to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The basic aim of the aid programme is the promotion of sustainable economic and social progress and the alleviation of poverty. That aim is entirely compatible with serving our political and commercial interests. It is not Her Majesty's Government's policy to use the aid programme for military purposes.

  China
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on official aid to the People's Republic of China.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Britain has a growing aid programme to China. In September I visited Peking to sign a new agreement which will provide aid and trade provision support for development projects to a total value of £300 million. Grant aid for technical co-operation in the current financial year is likely to be about £5 million.

  Rain Forest
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will meet the chairman of the World bank to discuss the possibility of writing off debts of developing countries in return for guarantees about the protection of areas of tropical rain forest.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I hope to meet the president of the World Bank in 1989 and to discuss the bank's increasing concern with environmental issues, including the protection of areas of tropical rain forest. I do not have specific plans to discuss the introduction of any direct linkage between the protection of rain forests and the wider question of measures to deal with developing countries' debt difficulties.

  UN (Voluntary Funds)
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contributions Her Majesty's Government will make in 1989 to the voluntary funds of the United Nations system.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  So far I have made the following pledges for 1989:

  £

  UN Development Programme (UNDP)

  26 million

  UN Children's FundUNICEF)

  8 million

  UN Population Fund (UNFPA)

  5·5 million

  430

  £

  UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM)

  50,000

  UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)

  3·6 million

  Industrial Development Fund of the UN Industrial Development Organisation (IDF)

  500,000

  Contributions to special appeals are decided during the course of the year. They add considerably to our funding of United Nations agencies.

  International Debt
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received regarding the problem of international debt.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I receive a number of letters on this subject from hon. Members and their constituents, as well as from representatives of non-governmental organisations. International debt is a frequent topic of discussion at the international meetings I attend.

  Aid (Ecology)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has plans to increase the amounts of aid for projects which restore, protect and improve the ecological basis of development in Third world nations.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Allocations to particular projects and sectors within our country programmes are agreed with recipient Governments and this involves weighing up competing priorities. I aim to agree with interested Governments more support to the forestry sector.

  Senegal
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what development assistance he is giving in support of Senegal's economic reform programme.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  During the state visit of President Diouf last month my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister offered a grant of £2 million. The grant is in the form of balance of payments finance in support of Senegal's continuing IMF-backed economic reform programme. It is in addition to our ongoing technical co-operation programme.

  New Zealand Dairy Imports
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what would be the impact on the United Kingdom dairy producers quota, in percentage terms, if all New Zealand dairy imports were stopped.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Community rules do not provide for any increase in United Kingdom milk quotas if New Zealand imports of dairy products were eliminated.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the European budget is devoted to the common agricultural policy and what was the figure in 1979.
  431
  Mr. MacGregor
  In 1988 it is currently estimated that spending under the common agricultural policy will take up 71 per cent. of the Community's budget, of which 3 per cent. is for depreciating old agricultural stocks and therefore relates to liabilities incurred in previous years. The equivalent figure for 1979 is 76 per cent.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will estimate how much land would be no longer needed(a) in the EEC as a whole, (b) in the United Kingdom and (c) in each of the four countries to support milk production in the event of bovine somatotropin being freely available and universally used in the EEC.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  No. To produce an estimate of any value would require detailed data, which are not available, and a variety of assumptions about the commercial application of bovine somatotropin were it to be approved.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the progress being made in compiling additional scientific information on each of the seven areas detailed by the chairman of the Farm Animal Welfare Council in his letter to him dated 26 October 1987,Official Report, 17 December 1987, column 740, regarding the use of bovine somatotropin to increase milk production.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information necessary to allow a full exploration of the areas identified by the Farm Animal Welfare Council is being generated in field trials conducted under the terms of animal test certificates issued by my Department.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has about steps taken by the European Community to guard against the export to developing nations of foodstuffs contaminated as a result of the Chernobyl accident.

  Mr. Ryder
  I am satisfied of the safety of all United Kingdom foodstuffs exported following the Chernobyl accident. At EC level, I understand that the Commission has taken administrative action to ensure that all food aid consignments to developing countries meet the same standards as those applied to post-Chernobyl imports from third countries.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to protect agriculture and fisheries in the area of Cumbria which were found by the post-Chernobyl aerial survey to have radioactivity readings in excess of 300,000 bq/sq m.

  Mr. Ryder
  The figures from the aerial survey need to be put in perspective. They relate to total caesium in the rocks and soil as well as in the vegetation. Monitoring on a regular basis of foodstuff in Cumbria area has shown there is no need to take additional measures to protect agriculture and fisheries.

  Furnace Ships
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his Department has undertaken any studies to monitor the environmental impact in the North sea of furnace ships moored there.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Two incineration vessels are currently approved to use the internationally agreed incineration site in the Dutch sector of the North sea. The environmental impact of the emissions from the vessels is kept under review by the Oslo and London dumping conventions. They are advised by a group of experts who include representatives of my Department.

  Chickens
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list, for each year since 1983, the apparent number of egg-producing chickens and the number of establishments that they are kept in by(a) battery methods, (b) deep litter and (c) free range.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Details of the size of the laying flock and number of holdings in the United Kingdom, taken from the UK annual agricultural census, are given in the table below. Very small holdings which only make occasional returns are excluded from these figures.

  Number of fowls

  Number of holdings

  (millions)

  (thousands)

  1983

  40·760

  51·9

  1984

  40·304

  48·1

  1985

  39·268

  46·4

  1986

  37·827

  44·6

  1987

  38·229

  41·9

  Separate census data are not collected on the type of farming system used. However, I estimate that the number of birds kept in deep litter and free range systems over the last three years are:—

  Number of fowls on deep litter

  Number of fowls on free range

  1985

  25,000

  319,000

  1986

  11,000

  908,000

  1987

  17,000

  1,148,000

  Information for earlier years is not available.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of salmonella have been reported for each year since 1983 in(a) battery chicken farms, (b) deep litter chicken farms and, (c) free range eggs for sale to the consumer and carcases for sale to the consumer.

  Mr. Ryder
  The reporting of salmonella in food producing animals is required under the zoonoses order 1975. The total number of incidents reported in live chickens in Great Britain since 1983 is as follows:

  Incidents

  1983

  514

  1984

  446

  1985

  456

  433

  Incidents

  1986

  519

  1987

  497

  It is not possible to distinguish between incidents occurring under different management systems.

  There is no statutory requirement to test poultry carcases or eggs specifically for salmonella and therefore no firm information on the number of cases is available.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will outline the work he is doing to monitor the effects of environmentally sensitive area designation on(a) farm incomes and (b) employment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have commissioned the universities of Manchester and Newcastle to carry out a detailed examination of the economic impact of ESA designations. I shall be publishing a report which will cover progress on this and a number of other fronts early in the new year.

  Fruit Orchards
  Mr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the hectares of fruit orchards that have been replaced on a county by county basis for each year since 1985 as a result of farmers receiving payment under the capital grant scheme; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list the reduction in hectares of fruit orchards on a county by county basis for each year since 1985 as a result of farmers receiving payment under the capital grant scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  I regret that this information is not available and could not be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  Fisheries Council
  Sir Michael Shaw
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Fisheries Council meeting in Brussels on the 9 and 10 December; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement that I gave earlier today.

  Weighted average price of United Kingdom wheat of point of first sale

  At 1979 prices2

  At 1987 prices2

  £ per tonne

  £ per tonne

  £ per tonne

  1979

  95·92

  95·92

  174·00

  1980

  99·30

  82·92

  150·44

  1981

  108·92

  81·58

  147·91

  1982

  113·74

  79·16

  143·54

  1983

  124·80

  82·62

  149·88

  1984

  114·58

  72·41

  131·31

  1985

  112·25

  67·24

  121·79

  1986

  111·18

  64·26

  116·52

  19871

  112·35

  61·90

  112·35

  1 Forecast.

  2 Using the GDP deflator (at market prices).

  Source: Annual Review of Agriculture.
  434

  Wheat
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average price paid to producers for wheat in each country of the EEC in 1986 and 1987 and that period in 1988 for which figures are available.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 9 December 1988]: Annual average producer prices for wheat in 1986, 1987 and the first quarter of 1988 are as follows:

  National currency/tonne

  1986

  1987

  198

  Belgium (BFR)

  8,301

  8,016

  7,678

  Denmark (DKR)

  1,469

  1,401

  1,365

  France (FF)

  1,152

  1,107

  1,053

  Germany (DM)

  410

  396

  386

  Greece (DR)

  21,720

  22,360

  26,530

  Ireland (IRL)

  105

  120

  1

  Italy (LIT)

  339,490

  325,100

  335,220

  Luxembourg (LFR)

  7,650

  7,483

  7,250

  Netherlands (HFL)

  449

  412

  1

  Portugal (ESC)

  1

  47,100

  1

  Spain (PTA)

  1

  1

  1

  United Kingdom (UK)

  111

  111

  107

  1 Figures not available.

  Source: Eurostat—Agricultural prices.

  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the average prices paid to producers for wheat in each year from 1979 to 1987 and also for the period of 1988 for which figures are available; and if he will express these at 1979 prices and 1987 prices.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer Friday 9 December 1988]: The price information requested for each of the years 1979 to 1987 is set out in the table. Final figures for 1987 and forecast figures for 1988 will not be available until published in "Agriculture in the United Kingdom" early next year.

  Pollen Beetle
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research is being sponsored by his Ministry into the damage caused by, and control of, the metogethes, or pollen beetle; whether such research will be affected by the transfer of responsibility for funding from the public to the private sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 9 December 1988]: My Department is supporting work by the Agricultural and
  436
  Food Research Council (AFRC) on the pollen beetle as part of a research programme on the ecology, behaviour and control of pests of oilseed rape. The Agricultural Development and Advisory Service (ADAS) is also monitoring the pollen beetle under the pest monitoring service and for crop intelligence reports. A very small proportion of the AFRC work and most of the ADAS work is regarded as appropriate for industry funding and we are seeking such support for it.

SCOTLAND

  VAT
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. Rifkind
  Implementation of the European Court of Justice's judgment on VAT 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.

  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, following the European Court's judgment that value added tax should be applied to new non-domestic buildings with effect from 1 April 1989, he has reviewed the levels of grant available under the local capital grants scheme.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have reviewed the levels of grant available and have decided to increase the maximum grant from £80,000 to £100,000 with effect from 1 April 1989. In addition our 1989–90 allocation for this scheme has been fixed at £1·045 million representing an increase of 17 per cent. over the 1988–89 amount. This increase takes into account both the imposition of value added tax on new buildings and increased costs.

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

  Mr. Rifkind
  1·4 per cent.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the total number of pupils in special schools who are neither ascertained nor recorded, giving the breakdown by region and by division.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The numbers of these pupils in special schools and departments at September 1987 are set out in the table.

  Number

  Borders

  30

  Central

  0

  Dumfries/Galloway

  50

  Fife

  190

  Grampian

  190

  Highland

  20

  Lothian

  960

  Strathclyde

  780

  Tayside

  90

  Orkney

  —

  Shetland

  —

  Western Isles

  —

  438

  Number

  ALL SCOTLAND

  2,320

  Argyll and Bute

  20

  Ayr

  100

  Dunbarton

  110

  Glasgow (City)

  290

  Lanark

  150

  Renfrew

  110

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the total number of ascertained or recorded students in primary schools and secondary schools with significant special educational needs arising from (a)severe/profound hearing impairment, (b) pronounced visual impairment, (c) severe physical impairment, (d) severe pervasive communication difficulties, (e) social and emotional difficulties and (f) moderate, severe or profound learning difficulties; and if he will give the breakdown by region and by division.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on the range of impairments of pupils in primary and secondary schools was collected for the first time in the 1988 school census and I will write to the hon. Member early next year when it has been collated.

  Language Teachers
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what plans there are to revise the draft review of staffing standards to include primary school language specialists;

  (2) what is the number of primary school language specialists which the Government projects is needed for 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There are no such plans. Pilot studies on the inclusion of a foreign language in the primary curriculum will start in 1989.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many modern language teachers have been employed in Scottish secondary schools in 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There were the equivalent of 1,856 full-time teachers of modern languages employed in Scottish secondary schools in 1987. Figures for 1985 and 1986 are not available, while those for 1988 are still being processed.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many modern language teachers have been employed in Scottish primary schools in 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  With the exception of specialist teachers of Gaelic, it is not usual to employ modern language teachers in that capacity in Scottish primary schools. There are some 15 specialist teachers of Gaelic who visit primary schools.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many modern language specialists are in training in Scottish colleges of education or Stirling University for(a) primary education and (b) secondary education.
  439
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There are 45 students training at Scottish colleges of education or at Stirling university to teach modern languages at secondary level. This figure does not include students in colleges of education whose main teaching qualification is not in modern language, but who may be taking a subsidiary teaching qualification in one. There is no separate qualification for specialist modern language teachers in primary schools.

  Health Service (Expenditure)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the additional planned expenditure on the National Health Service in Scotland for 1989–90 showing the amount of new cash and the amount of savings in each of(a) hospital and community services, (b) primary health care and (c) centralised services.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend will announce shortly his plans for expenditure on the National Health Service in Scotland for the years 1989–90 to 1991–92.

  Legal Aid Rates

  Law Society Rate

  Percentages

  Date

  Column A Civil1

  Column B Criminal1

  Column C

  Column A as a Percentage of Column C

  Column B as a Percentage of Column C

  15 September 1976

  8·57

  9·52

  18·00

  47·6

  52·9

  1 January 1977

  8·57

  9·52

  18·00

  47·6

  52·9

  1 January 1978

  8·57

  9·52

  18·00

  47·6

  52·9

  1 January 1979

  11·09

  12·32

  25·00

  44·4

  49·3

  1 January 1980

  11·09

  12·32

  30·00

  37·0

  41·1

  1 January 1981

  14·41

  16·02

  33·50

  43·0

  47·8

  1 January 1982

  15·12

  16·80

  35·00

  43·2

  48·0

  1 January 1983

  21·17

  23·52

  38·00

  55·7

  61·9

  1 January 1984

  22·18

  24·64

  40·00

  55·5

  61·6

  1 January 1985

  22·18

  24·64

  42·50

  52·2

  58·0

  1 January 1986

  23·41

  25·98

  45·00

  52·0

  57·7

  1 January 1987

  24·42

  27·10

  48·50

  50·4

  55·9

  1 January 1988

  25·62

  30·60

  52·50

  48·8

  58·3

  1 August 1988

  26·77

  31·60

  52·50

  51·0

  60·2

  1 Inclusive of an additional 12 per cent. to cover posts and incidents. An increase to the rates in Column C to cover such items may be charged by the solicitor according to the circumstances of the case.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the percentage of full-time students in Scotland receiving(a) 1 to 9 per cent., (b) 10 to 19 per cent., (c) 20 to 29 per cent., (d) 30 to 39 per cent., (e) 40 to 49 per cent., (f) 50 to 59 per cent., (g) 60 to 69 per cent., (h) 70 to 79 per cent., (i) 80 to 89 per cent., (j) 90 to 99 per cent., (k) and 100 per cent. respectively, of the student grant.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The latest available complete figures, which relate to session 1987–88, are as follows. The analysis is based on Scottish domiciled full-time students in receipt of maintenance grants under the students' allowances scheme. The figures show the percentage of such students whose actual maintenance grant entitlement falls within each of the defined proportions of their full standard maintenance allowance.

  Percentage

  a)

  2·5

  b)

  3·3

  c)

  3·9

  d)

  4·2

  e)

  4·7

  f)

  5·1

  Legal Aid
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report for each of the last 25 years (a) the hourly rate of remuneration payable under the section one legal aid scheme for time occupied in performance of all work other than attendance at court, conducting proof or formal debate, (b) the hourly rate of remuneration payable under the criminal legal aid scheme for time occupied in performance of all work other than attendance at trial and (c) the value of 10 units, being the level of hourly charges recommended by the Law Society of Scotland except in so far as prescribed by or under statute; and if he will show (a) as a percentage of (c) and (b) as a percentage of (c).

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The table provides the information for the last 13 years. Before then the Law Society of Scotland did not recommend a unit charge.

  Percentage

  g)

  5·4

  h)

  6·2

  i)

  7·7

  j)

  7·8

  k)

  49·2

  Accident and Emergency Treatment
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Royal College of Surgeons about avoidable deaths in rural areas due to delays in transporting accident victims for emergency treatment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the future provision of accident and emergency departments in the Greater Glasgow Health Board.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  All accident and emergency services in Glasgow are currently being reviewed. The strategy team has still to report to the board and no recommendations concerning any of the sites have yet
  441
  been made. Any plan which may be proposed as a result of the review will of course be subject not only to board approval but also to the normal consultative process.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he can give regarding the future of the accident and emergency department of Stobhill hospital.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 12 December to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith).

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he can give regarding the future of the accident and emergency department of the Southern General hospital, Glasgow.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 12 December to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith).

  Strip Searches
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will issue a code of practice for police officers carrying out strip searches(a) in what circumstances strip searches should be authorised, (b) what rank of police officers should be empowered to authorise strip searches, (c) by whom strip searches should be carried out and (d) what records should be kept of strip searches.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Procedures for searching persons detained or arrested by the police are set out in force orders and instructions, with which all officers must comply. The evidence available at present to my right hon. and learned Friend does not suggest that there is a need for further guidance to the police service bearing specifically on strip searching.

  North Sea Pollution
  Mr. James Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to monitor the levels of polychlorinated biphenys along Scotland's North sea coast.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Responsibility for monitoring coastal waters lies with the river purification authorities (river purification boards and islands councils) who undertake monitoring according to local circumstances.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest information regarding the number of disabled people in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The most recent information about the number of disabled adults in Scotland is contained in the first report of a survey of disability in Great Britain, issued by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys on 28 September 1988. The report's estimate of the number of disabled adults in Scotland is 611,000, of whom 125,000 are in the least severe of 10 severity categories. A report on the number of disabled children (which forms a part of the survey) will be issued next summer.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest information regarding the number of cases of people affected by salmonella as a result of the consumption of(a) eggs and (b) poultry.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  So far in 1988, 2,847 cases of food poisoning in Scotland have been reported by general practitioners. In cases where it has been possible to identify the cause, 99 arising from five incidents have been attributed to salmonella in egg or egg-based products and 113 arising from 22 incidents to salmonella in poultry.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest information regarding hospital waiting lists in(a) Scotland, (b) Strathclyde, (c) Lothian, (d) Edinburgh, (e) Glasgow, (f) Aberdeen and (g) Dundee.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on waiting lists is collated centrally only for health board areas. The latest available information on hospital in-patient and day case waiting lists is published in the statistical bulletin 1/88, "Waiting List Figures for 31 March 1988", copies of which are held in the Library.

  Eye Treatment
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new cases of(a) glaucoma and (b) blindness were treated in (i) Scotland, (ii) Strathclyde and (iii) Glasgow for each year since 1975.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on new cases of glaucoma and blindness is not available centrally. The number of in-patient discharges from hospital where the main diagnosis was glaucoma is shown below. This represents, however, only part of the glaucoma caseload as some treatment is provided on an out-patient basis.

  Greater Glasgow

  Strathclyde

  Scotland

  1975

  554

  775

  1,412

  1976

  574

  799

  1,396

  1977

  551

  766

  1,343

  1978

  622

  792

  1,369

  1979

  482

  706

  1,230

  1980

  670

  895

  1,446

  1981

  697

  915

  1,531

  1982

  715

  1,008

  1,679

  1983

  664

  930

  1,599

  1984

  707

  958

  1,680

  1985

  669

  933

  1,783

  1986

  719

  1,022

  1,939

  1987

  805

  1,107

  2,018

  Regional Development Grant
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many fraud investigations, in connection with payments of regional development grant, are in hand at present.

  Mr. Lang
  At present 24 cases are under investigation by the police in Scotland. In addition, a number of other cases are being reviewed and some of them may be brought to the attention of the police.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many jobs were supported through the payment of
  443
  regional development grant in each of the past five years; how many of these jobs were retained for at least 12 months; and how many he estimates to be still in existence.

  Mr. Lang
  Payments under the original regional development grant scheme (RDG1) were not tied to the creation of jobs. Jobs linked to payment authorisations under the revised regional development grant scheme (RDG2) since its inception in November 1984 are as follows:

  Number of new jobs

  1984–85

  nil

  1985–86

  4,490

  1986–87

  12,360

  1987–88

  13,720

  1988–89

  (to end Nov)

  9,160

  The RDG2 scheme encompasses capital grant, job grant and grant associated with the provision of both assets and jobs. The rules that govern payments under the scheme require that assets or jobs have to be retained for 36 or 18 months respectively. Completed projects are normally visited within this period. Although comprehensive figures for jobs retained for just 12 months are not available, these visits have revealed that around 1,400 of the 35,240 jobs created since April 1986 had been lost by the time of the visit. Beyond this, it is not possible to make reliable estimates for the number of jobs still in existence.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to detect and eliminate fraud to the payment of regional development grants.

  Mr. Lang
  Examination procedures to detect fraudulent claims have been in place since the inception of the scheme. It would not be in the public interest to give further details.

  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to introduce new guidelines for the granting of regional development grants to private companies in Scotland in the next financial year.

  Mr. Lang
  No. The statutes and procedures under which the regional development grant schemes are operated throughout Great Britain provide an adequate framework. The administration of the schemes is under constant review.

  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many jobs have been created as a result of regional development grant in the last year.

  Mr. Lang
  Payments under the original regional development grant scheme (RDG1) were not tied to the creation of jobs. Payment authorisations for job grant under the revised regional development grants scheme (RDG2) in the latest financial year (1987–88) were linked to the creation of over 13,700 jobs.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the investigation by the fraud squad in Strathclyde region on alleged abuse of the regional development fund, he will take steps to tighten up the system for awarding such grants.

  Mr. Lang
  The administration procedures of regional development grant are under constant review. Many of the 444
  investigations presently being undertaken by the fraud squad of Strathclyde police are a direct consequence of the vigorous application of the existing scrutiny procedures.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he or any of his ministerial colleagues have any plans to visit Millport to discuss the community charge.

  Mr. Lang
  I have no plans to do so. I am aware of the concerns that have been expressed about aspects of the community charge in Millport and I have responded to these concerns.

  Forestry
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to privatise the Forestry Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government have not drawn up any plans to privatise the Forestry Commission, nor have the Government made any proposals which might lead in that direction.

  Liquor Licences
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he has any proposals to amend the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 to allow for a right of appeal against the granting of a liquor licence by persons living near to the premises to which the licence relates;

  (2) if he has any proposals to amend the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 to broaden the grounds on which an application for a licence can be objected to and to simplify the procedure for so doing;

  (3) if he has any proposals to amend the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 to allow the licensing boards greater flexibility in regulating licensed premises, including the power on cause shown to suspend a licence or to restrict its scope on an interim basis;

  (4) if he has any proposals to amend the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 so far as the consideration of application for regular extensions of hours of opening by licensed premises is concerned; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) what representations he has received regarding amendments to the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question on 7 November 1988 about amendments to the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976.

  Zircon
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in the light of the raid on BBC Scotland relating to the Zircon film, the Lord Advocate plans to make any changes in the method of application for search warrants in cases originating outside his jurisdiction.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No.

  Hypothermia
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what urgent steps is he taking in order to minimise the risks of hypothermia in Scotland this winter.
  445
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In addition to the information pack the Scottish Health Education Group supplies to health professionals annually, we recently launched the Scotish campaign "Keep Warm This Winter" to remind old people and other vulnerable groups of the simple, practical steps they can take to minimise risks in winter, and to encourage good citizenship among the population generally. The campaign comprises the distribution of 1 million copies of a leaflet, supporting publicity and a free telephone helpline.

  Salmon Fishing
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate, by local government area, the anticipated cost of revenue to Scottish local authorities through the abolition of rates on salmon fishing.

  Mr. Lang
  The best estimates available of the maximum losses of income are:

  Total cost of revenue to authorities £000

  Borders

  81

  Central

  7

  Dumfries and Galloway

  52

  Fife

  0

  Grampian

  265

  Highland

  146

  Lothian

  0

  Strathclyde

  16

  Tayside

  199

  Orkney

  0

  Shetland

  0

  Western Isles

  15

  Scotland

  781

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he intends to take to implement the recommendations of the Salmon Advisory Committee on the need for more accurate reports on salmon catches.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The recommendations made in the salmon advisory committee's report "Information on the status of salmon stocks" are still being considered.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Scottish salmon proprietors have failed to report catch returns in each of the past five years; and if he will name those who have been in default on more than one occasion.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of proprietors (and occupiers) of salmon fisheries who failed to provide catch returns for the years 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 are as follows. Accurate information for 1983 is not available. It is not my intention to name those individuals who have not provided catch returns.

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Number of catch returns not provided

  118

  214

  113

  103

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the salmon proprietors who failed to register catch returns for 1987.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No.
  446
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action is to be taken against salmon proprietors who failed to register catch returns for 1987 under the Salmon and Fresh Water Fisheries Act 1951.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend is reviewing the administrative arrangements for obtaining salmon catch statistics with a view to improving the rate of return of forms issued.

  School Transport
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in the light of the increasing number of roadside assaults on, and abductions of young children he intends to seek to change the current provisions for school transport within the Education Acts, and to make available additional resources for local authorities to use their discretion in providing transport in rural areas.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I have no plans to change the current provisions for school transport. Education authorities have a wide discretion in this area and they are in the best position to assess and determine arrangements in the light of local needs and circumstances.

  The special circumstances of school transport in rural areas are fully taken into account in arriving al the provision for relevant expenditure in the calculation of revenue support grant; but it is for authorities individually to set their own budgetary priorities.

HEALTH

  Ophthalmology (Waiting Times)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any information concerning the comparative average waiting times and numbers of patients currently on the waiting lists for ophthalmological procedure at present(a) in the Nottingham district health authority and (b) on average in England and Wales.

  Mr. Mellor
  There were 625 patients on the inpatient waiting list for ophthalmology in Nottingham at 31 March 1988 compared with an average of 420 patients for the 152 English health authorities which provide inpatient ophthalmology treatment. Nottingham health authority serves a much larger population than most health districts. The median waiting time for ophthalmology patients treated in the quarter ending 31 March 1988 was 10 weeks in Nottingham compared with 11 weeks for England as a whole.

  Questions about waiting lists in Wales are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Locum Doctors
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the cost by year, for the last five years, to the Trent regional health authority, by area health authority, for employing locum doctors; what has been the national average over the same period; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  I shall let the hon. Member have such information as can be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost as soon as possible.

  Care in the Community
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals for care in the community.

  Mr. Mellor
  We are currently framing our own proposals in the light of Sir Roy Griffiths' recommendations and the many views expressed on his report.

  Nursing Homes (London)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to give additional resources to Inner London district health authorities for nursing home provision.

  Mr. Mellor
  We allocate funds to regional health authorities. It is for them to distribute funds to districts for the provision of health care, including long-term nursing care for elderly people, and in doing so they take account of local circumstances. We shall be announcing 1989–90 allocations to regions in the near future.

  Cervical Smear Tests
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to ensure a quicker turnover of the results of cervical cancer smear tests.

  Mrs. Currie
  As at 1 September 1988, the latest date for which we hold information, almost 75 per cent. of health authorities reported that they were meeting the Department's target of ensuring that laboratories report the results of cervical smear tests within one month to the doctor who submitted the smear. Health authorities' performance is closely monitored and those not meeting this target are asked to detail the action they are taking to remedy the situation. Specific policy options are discussed with health authorities as appropriate and these include:

  (a) recruitment of additional laboratory staff;

  (b) consideration of staff grading structures in the light of the recently agreed new pay and grade structure for medical laboratory scientific officers and support staff;

  (c) overtime working;

  (d) use of other NHS laboratories;

  (e) use of private laboratories;

  (f) reducing the numbers of excess smears, for example those taken more frequently than the locally agreed interval.

  Barnet Health Authority
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of patients registered with National Health Service general practitioners in Barnet health authority; and what is the population of Barnet health authority.

  Mr. Mellor
  There were 372,400 names registered with a general medical practitioner in October 1988 with an address in the Barnet family practitioner committee area. The latest available (mid-1987) population estimate for Barnet district health authority, which is coterminous with Barnet FPC, is 305,900.

  Prescription Charges
  Sir Anthony Meyer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will extend exemption from prescription charges to sufferers from(a) Crohn's disease and (b) other chronic and incurable conditions.
  448
  Mr. Mellor
  We have no plans to do so.

  Hepatitis B
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make additional resources available to district health authorities for vaccination of all Health Service employees at risk of hepatitis B infection.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have advised health authorities that it is the responsibility of their occupational health services to decide which staff should receive priority for vaccination against hepatitis B, in the light of guidance which we have issued from the joint committee on vaccination and immunisation. We believe that many authorities have already taken the necessary steps to ensure that this advice is followed.

  Infant Mortality
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library the document entitled "Geographical Variations in Infant Mortality In Relation To Birthweight" referred to on page 50 of the chief medical officer's annual report for 1987.

  Mrs. Currie
  A copy of the draft paper "Geographical Variation In Infant Mortality In Relation To Birthweight" (dated April 1988) will be placed in the Library shortly. A revised version of the paper will be incorporated into the forthcoming OPCS "Decennial Supplement On Mortality And Geography" (series DS), to be published in 1989.

  Hospital Buildings
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, pursuant to his Parliamentary Under-Secretary's reply to the hon. Member for Coventry South-East of 6 December, concerning the average age of hospital buildings, he will place the results of the information collected in the Library and publish the results in the Official Report at the appropriate time.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information about the age of hospital buildings is used by health authorities in the management of their estates. But the condition of buildings is not necessarily related to age and we shall not be collecting the information centrally.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether his Department issues guidance on the preparation and cooking of snipe and woodcock; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is his assessment of the risk to the public of salmonella poisoning from the consumption of wild and reared game; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The ubiquitous nature of salmonella and other food poisoning organisms suggests that the meat of any food animal has the potential to be contaminated. I have no evidence that game is a significant vehicle for food poisoning. However, the Department advises that as a general rule it is safest to cook food thoroughly and game is no exception. If frozen, cooking should be preceded by adequate thawing. Additional advice to consumers on the preparation and cooking of game is deemed unnecessary.
  449
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is his assessment of the risk to the public of salmonella poisoning from the consumption of duck and goose eggs; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is his assessment of the risk to the public of salmonella poisoning from the consumption of quails' eggs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Duck eggs have always been recognised as being at risk of salmonella contamination but there is no evidence to suggest that there has been any increase in the level of contamination.

  I understand that culinary practice is to hard boil duck and quail eggs. Goose eggs are rarely eaten.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his advice to the public concerning the risk of contracting salmonella poisoning from the consumption of turkey; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  As with any other food, turkeys should be thoroughly cooked. If frozen, cooking should be preceded by adequate thawing. Cross-contamination with other foods should be avoided.

  The Department will be issuing the usual advice to consumers about thawing and cooking poultry at Christmas time.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many eggs were infected by salmonella in 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  It is not possible to give a precise estimate but, as I told the House on 5 December at column 19, the risk of infection to any individual is small and the risk to the healthy adult is very small so long as the egg is cooked.

  Nurses and Midwives (Pay)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date the next nurses and midwives pay award will be implemented.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Decisions on implementation of the review body's recommendations will be taken in the normal way after the review body has submitted its report to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  Hypothermia
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new measures his Department is seeking to implement in order to minimise the risks of hypothermia this winter.

  Mrs. Currie
  On 17 November the Government launched this year's "Keep Warm Keep Well" campaign. This is a health promotion campaign designed to give people information and advice about how to combat the risks of cold weather and is supported by the Departments of Health, Social Security, Environment, Welsh Office and Energy and several voluntary organisations.

  As well as supporting the "Keep Warm Keep Well" campaign, the Department of Social Security provides cold weather payments, the Department of the Environment runs the home insulation grants scheme, and the Department of Energy supports neighbourhood energy action, which organises community insulation projects.
  450
  We printed around 750,000 copies of the campaign booklet and there has already been sufficient demand to order a reprint. The telephone help line on 0800-289404, the Winter Warmth line, is receiving around 200 calls a day.

  Immunisation
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if children in the(a) Lewisham and North Southwark district health authority and (b) Camberwell district health authority will be able to have mumps, measles and rubella immunisation at the age of (i) one year, (ii) two years, (iii) three years, (iv) four years or (v) five years.

  Mrs. Currie
  Following advice from the joint committee on vaccination and immunisation, we recommended to health authorities that MMR vaccine should be offered to infants at age 15 months with an additional "catch-up" programme to take in four to five-year-olds at the time of their diphtheria, tetanus and polio pre-school boosters. Vaccination of children at other ages is a matter for decision by individual clinicians.

  AIDS
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many persons in England and Wales have contracted(a) human immunodeficiency virus. (b) acquired immune deficiency syndrome and (c) hepatitis B since monitoring commenced.

  Mr. Mellor
  The available information is as follows:

  (a) The recently published Cox report estimated that there were 20,000-50,000 cases by the end of 1987.

  (b) 1,847 cases reported to the end of November 1988.

  (c) 8,074 cases reported from 1982 to mid-1988.

  Mental Health Services (Spending)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how his Department is monitoring the priority given to spending by health regions on mental health services.

  Mr. Mellor
  We look to regional health authorities, who are responsible for monitoring their services, to promote development of mental health services within their total financial allocations. The Department regularly assesses progress through the annual planning and review process.

  Pharmacies
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the National Health Service review will consider the way in which the location of pharmacies is decided by family practitioner committees.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding reply 9 December 1988]: Separately from the review, we shall be issuing further advice on this matter in the light of experience of the operation of the current system and a recent court judgment.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will investigate the claim by Mrs. Eva Davison, now deceased, for attendance allowance in 1985; and why no final settlement has yet been made.

  Mr. Scott
  The attendance allowance board has completed its review of the late Mrs. Davison's claim and its decision will be sent to Mr. Davison as soon as possible. I regret the delay in dealing with this case and I am writing to my hon. Friend.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he intends to increase the level of cold weather payments this winter.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he intends to increase the level of cold weather payments this winter.

  Mr. Scott
  No. We believe the sum of £5 per week is a reasonable amount to pay towards the cost of extra heating needed in particularly cold weather.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much he would expect to spend on advertising cold weather payments if a spell of cold weather covered the whole of Great Britain.

  Mr. Scott
  Local office managers are required to advertise the availability of cold weather payments in the press immediately a spell of cold weather is declared. Costs will vary depending on the size of the geographic area covered by the particular newspaper and the extent of advertising needed. However, total expenditure for the winter of 1986–87, which included a particularly cold spell of weather, was £414,000.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what additional information local offices of his Department would need in order to identify income support claimants entitled to cold weather payments without requiring them to claim individually.

  Mr. Scott
  Payment in the manner suggested would require local offices to search through their entire live load of cases to identify case papers for those in the eligible groups. Information would then also be required to establish the amount of capital held by each potential beneficiary.

  Leaflets
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations his Department has received about the difficulties experienced by public libraries in receiving an adequate stock of up-to-date leaflets from his Department in order to satisfy inquiries from members of the public about social security benefits.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 7 December 1988]: I understand that the Department has received a number of letters about this matter. The Department has not sought libraries' agreement to their acting as a principal source of
  452
  social security leaflets for the public and therefore no specific arrangements have been made. We do, however, recognise the valuable resource that libraries represent in directing members of the public to the appropriate agencies and providing reference materials and officials are exploring ways of resolving any supply difficulties.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, further to his reply of 14 November,Official Report, column 450, concerning leaflet FB23, what is the practice of his Department in relation to the inclusion of evaluative statements within explanatory leaflets issued for the guidance of the public.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Department does not include evaluative statements in the information it provides on social security benefits in its explanatory leaflets. The additional information in FB23 concerning the Department of Employment's YTS scheme is fact and relevant to the decisions made by very many of the young people who are likely to consult this leaflet.

  Taxes and Benefits
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he is able to estimate the latest figures for the numbers of family credit applications awaiting a decision; and if he is able to break down the reasons for the delays in processing them.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 8 December.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much a full uprating in 1989–90 of the illustrative rates of income support personal allowances would cost as published in the technical annex of the White Paper, "Reform of Social Security", in line with the retail prices index, less housing, in 1988–89, excluding compensation for the 20 per cent. contribution to rates.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on 28 November 1988, at column 94.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people claimed unemployment benefit only; and what number and proportion of them had been on unemployment benefit alone for six months or more in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available figures relate to the numbers in receipt of unemployment benefit only in November each year rather than to the number of claims.

  Number of persons receiving unemployment benefit only

  Number receiving unemployment benefit only

  Total

  For 6 months or more

  For 6 months or more as a percentage of total

  November 1979

  386,619

  78,369

  20·3

  November 1980

  778,606

  158,679

  20·4

  February 1982

  837,230

  238,650

  28·5

  November 1982

  713,731

  230,536

  32·3

  453

  Number receiving unemployment benefit only

  Total

  For 6 months or more

  For 6 months or more as a percentage of total

  November 1983

  684,037

  227,617

  33·3

  November 1984

  699,489

  228,555

  32·7

  November 1985

  679,005

  219,994

  32·4

  November 1986

  741,684

  252,871

  34·1

  November 1987

  548,765

  189,441

  34·5

  Notes:

  1. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample of cases taken on the second Thursday in November.

  2. No figures are available for November 1981 owing to industrial action; information was, however, collected in February 1982.

  Disabled Persons
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) on what date he plans to implement section 7 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) on what date he plans to implement section 11 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  As part of the discussions to implement section 7 of the Act, officials met local authority representatives on 17 November 1988. The timetable for implementation will depend on the outcome of further discussions with local authority and health authority representatives. The first report required under section 11 is expected to be laid before the House before the end of 1989.

  Benefits
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were claiming supplementary benefit on 1 April; and how many were claiming income support on 1 May(a) for United Kingdom as a whole and (b) for each of his Department's local offices in the counties of: (i) Cleveland, (ii) Cumbria, (iii) Durham, (iv) Northumberland and (v) Tyne and Wear.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information is available in respect of 17 November 1987 for supplementary benefit and 31 May 1988 for income support as follows:

  Supplementary benefit live load at 17 November 1987

  Income support live load at 31 May 1988

  National (Great Britain)

  5,045,062

  4,508,724

  Cleveland

  Eston

  8,445

  7,572

  Hartlepool

  12,365

  11,083

  Middlesbrough

  23,141

  20,854

  Redcar

  9,492

  8,528

  Stockton

  20,321

  17,597

  Cumbria

  Carlisle

  8,430

  7,913

  Kendal

  2,732

  2,418

  Workington

  5,755

  5,337

  Whitehaven

  4,617

  4,218

  Penrith

  2,043

  1,747

  Barrow

  8,116

  7,504

  454

  Supplementary benefit live load at 17 November 1987

  Income support live load at 31 May 1988

  Durham

  Bishop Auckland

  14,762

  12,396

  Chester-Le-Street

  6,794

  6,059

  Darlington

  13,905

  13,110

  Durham

  6,174

  5,452

  Peterlee

  7,396

  6,145

  Seaham

  3,154

  2,680

  Stanley

  10,502

  9,482

  Northumberland

  Ashington

  7,097

  6,503

  Berwick

  1,887

  1,738

  Blyth

  8,872

  7,816

  Hexham

  2,865

  2,613

  Tyne and Wear

  Gateshead

  23,898

  21,267

  Houghton-Le-Spring

  4,541

  4,092

  Jarrow

  8,693

  7,582

  Newcastle St. James

  17,303

  15,156

  Newcastle East

  17,170

  15,278

  Newcastle West

  11,836

  10,336

  North Shields

  11,462

  9,812

  South Shields

  14,040

  12,130

  Sunderland North

  20,612

  18,670

  Sunderland South

  16,131

  15,014

  Wallsend

  9,202

  8,035

  (The source is a 100 per cent. count of cases in action. These figures may, however, overstate the number of people receiving supplementary benefit. Claims records were updated during the conversion to income support. The exercise showed that some claims were still recorded as live even though the person was no longer receiving supplementary benefit. This means that some counts of the number of supplementary benefit claims do not reflect the fall in the number of people receiving supplementary benefit.)

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants will not receive any overall increase in their benefit income in April 1989(a) for the United Kingdom as a whole and (b) for each of his Department's local offices in the counties of (i) Cleveland, (ii) Cumbria, (iii) Durham, (iv) Northumberland and (v) Tyne and Wear, both numerically and as a percentage of benefit claimants.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Estimates are readily available only for those receiving income support. The latest figures for Great Britain as a whole indicate that about ½ million or 11 per cent. of claimants will not receive any overall increase in their income support in April. The information is not available on an office by office basis.

  Single Parents
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons in Shetland, who are in receipt of income support, receive the single parents supplement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On 31 August 1988, the latest date for which information is available, 145 people were receiving the lone parent premium.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of single parents on income support who have ceased working since the change in the disregard rules.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret this information is not available.

  Grants and Loans
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many applications for a loan or community care grant have been made for help with payment of a fuel supply since April 1988 to the Erdington and Perry Barr offices of his Department; how many of these have been awarded; and what is the total cost of such grants;

  (2) how many applications for a loan or community care grant have been made for reconnection of a fuel supply since April to the Erdington and Perry Barr offices of his Department; how many of these have been awarded; and what is the total cost of such loans and grants.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Other than where the need arises as a consequence of an emergency or disaster, awards from the social fund in respect of the cost of mains fuel consumption and associated standing charges are excluded from payment by direction of the Secretary of State. In the period from April 1988 in the Erdington and Perry Barr local offices the latest available figures show that there has been a total of 72 applications for assistance with fuel meter reconnection, installation or re-siting costs of which 36 have received awards totalling £4,787·43.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many community care grant applications have been made each month since April 1988 to the Erdington and Perry Barr offices of his Department; how many have been awarded; and what is the total cost of such grants;

  (2) how many applications each month have been made for a community care grant for families under stress; how much was awarded; and what percentage this represents of the community care grant budget each month since April to the Erdington and Perry Barr offices of his Department.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information on the numbers, by month, of applications for social fund community care grants, together with the numbers and value of awards made is available in the Library. Details of applications for awards of such grants to families under stress are not recorded as a separate identifiable category and the information which the hon. Member seeks could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many social fund loan applications have been made each month since April to the Erdington and Perry Barr offices of his Department; how many of these have been awarded; and what is the cost of such loans.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information on numbers of applications for social fund loans received, processed and awarded, listed by local office, including information on budget allocations and expenditure, is available in the Library.

  Relocation of Work
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a further statement on the relocation of some work from London local offices.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Our plans for relocating some work from some local social security offices in London are still 456
  under detailed consideration. Final decisions have not yet been taken, but we hope to make a full announcement shortly. The offices currently under consideration are Acton, Brixton, Camberwell, Chelsea, Cricklewood, Crystal Palace, Ealing, Euston, Finsbury Park, Greenwich Park, Harlesden, Highgate, Hither Green, Kensington, Lewisham, Neasden, Notting Hill, Oval, Paddington, Peckham and Southall.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants on transitional protection of housing benefit will lose all of it in April as a result of the application of the erosion factor.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Applications for transitional payments will continue to be received until 31 March 1989. Until they have all been received it is not possible to give figures on the numbers who will cease to receive payments when the erosion factor is implemented. However, as these transitional payments are to be reduced by £2 a week in April anyone receiving less than this amount will cease to receive payments in April 1989.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what way the treatment of payments for rental purchase of a house under the income support regulations differs from the treatment of such payments under the supplementary benefit regulations prior to 11 April.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There was no change. Payments under rental purchase schemes have not been met from supplementary benefit or income support since 1983, when help with such payments was transferred to the new housing benefit scheme. Housing benefit continued to be available to rental purchasers after 11 April 1988, and as I announced in my reply to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) on 14 November 1988 at columns 631-632 we have no plans to change this.

  Availability for Employment
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether an income support claimant who is incapable of work but not entitled to sickness benefit, invalidity pension or severe disablement allowance can qualify for exemption from the requirement to be available for employment under paragraph 5 of schedule 1 to the Income Support General Regulations as amended with effect from 10 April 1989.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Yes, so long as the claimant provides medical evidence which satisfies the adjudication officer that he is incapable of work.

  Tax Liability
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the total net tax liability on earnings of £6,500 for(a) two single people sharing accommodation where income is equally divided, (b) a married couple with a single wage, (c) a married couple with two equal wages, (d) a married couple on a single wage with two children, and (e) a married couple on a single wage with four children.
  457
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I have been asked to reply. Information is given in the table.

  Income tax liability less child benefit on earnings of £6,500 in 1988–89

  Income tax liability less child benefit

  £ per annum

  £ per week

  (a) Two single people sharing accommodation, each earning £3,250

  322·50

  6·20

  (b) Married couple, husband earning £6,500

  601·25

  11·56

  (c) Married couple, each earning £3,250

  —

  —

  (d) Married couple, husband earning £6,500, with two children

  -152·75

  -2·94

  (e) Married couple, husband earning £6,500 with four children

  -906·75

  -17·44

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many tax units paying the higher rate of tax receive child benefit; and how much these payments cost.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 17 May 1988 at column 419.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisons (Psychiatrists)
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many full and part-time psychiatrists, respectively, are employed to treat persons detained in Her Majesty's prisons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None of the full-time medical staff in the prison service is employed wholly on psychiatric work but over 40 (about 40 per cent.) full-time medical officers have a qualification in psychiatry. Over 130 psychiatrists, most of consultant status, hold appointments to undertake sessional work.

  Prison Staff (Psychiatric Training)
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what training staff in Her Majesty's prisons receive in dealing with persons with psychiatric problems.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Opportunities are available to full-time medical officers to acquire additional psychiatric qualifications or experience by study and suitable attachments. Arrangements for medical officer training generally are to be reviewed in the light of the imminent report of an advisory working group chaired by the president of the Royal College of Physicians. Many (over 40 per cent.) full-time medical officers hold post-graduate qualifications in psychiatry.
  458
  A qualification in psychiatric nursing is held by some hospital officer and nurse grade staff. A substantial element of the induction training received by hospital officers is concerned with aspects of psychiatric care. Development training is also provided for both hospital officer and nurse grade staff in the form of prison service courses dealing with the principles of psychiatric care in a secure environment and opportunities exist for external studies and placements.

  Extradition
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many requests for extradition in the last year have been made to the Irish authorities; how many have been refused; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  In the last year requests by police forces in England and Wales for arrest warrants to be backed in the Republic of Ireland have been made in respect of seven persons. None of these requests have been refused.

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

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Excepting staff in prison officer grades (whose duties preclude the employment of disabled persons) the number of registered disabled represents 0·7 per cent. of the Department's staff. There is no record of the number of staff with disabilities who elect not to register.

  Information (Security)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether specific changes of procedure have been introduced to improve the security of information from unauthorised use or disclosure that arise from the prosecution of Mr. C. Gumbrell for use of information from the police national computer for unauthorised purposes.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that he has not considered it necessary at this stage to introduce any futher improvements in procedures to protect information available to the Metropolitan police from the police national computer, as a result of the prosecution of Mr. C. Gumbrell. The force is already able to trace the originating officer for all inquiries to the PNC from terminals in the force and indeed this facility was used in the case of Mr. Gumbrell. The procedures, however, are kept under constant review and in this task the force has the assistance of the Home Officer adviser on the protection of data held on the PNC.

  Police Liaison Committees
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many London boroughs have police liaison consultative committees; how many are officially supported by the majority party of the local council; which borough council majority parties refuse to nominate representatives to their local police consultative committee; and if he will make a statement.
  459
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Police/community consultative groups are now established in all London boroughs. The majority parties of five borough councils have refused to nominate representatives to their local group. They are: Brent, Ealing, Hackney, Haringey and Lambeth.

  I congratulate the many people of good will who are working so hard to make the consultative process a success, and I deplore the decision by a small minority of councils not to participate. I hope that they will reconsider their position.

  Police (Traffic Duties)
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total amount of time spent by the Metropolitan Police on traffic matters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  At 31 December 1987, 881 police officers, 1,527 traffic wardens, 1,100 school crossing patrols and 150 civilian administrative support staff were deployed on specialist traffic duties by the Metropolitan police. The total police strength on that date was 27,438 and that of the civilian staff was 16,360.

  Detailed information about man hours and about the time spent on road traffic matters by non-specialist personnel is not available.

  Immigration
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons detained under the Immigration Act 1971 have been held at police stations in excess of seven days in(a) Scotland, (b) England and Wales and (c) Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Renton
  I am not aware of any such current case.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons detained under the Immigration Act 1971 are at present held in police stations in(a) Scotland, (b) England and Wales and (c) Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Renton
  On 7 December 1988 the number of persons detained in police stations under the Immigration Act 1971 were(a) in Scotland-nil (b) in England and Wales-37 and (c) in Northern Ireland-nil.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether immigration officers have been instructed to use endorsement under section 3(3)(b) of the Immigration Act 1971 in respect of all persons who are eligible for such endorsement.

  Mr. Renton
  No. Immigration officers are instructed to make use of section 3(3)(b), which enables conditions of leave already granted to be re-imposed, where the passenger's circumstances following examination on arrival warrant its use.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many persons have been deported under section 3(5)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971 since the coming into force of the Immigration Act 1988; and how any persons were so deported in the same period preceding the coming into force of the 1988 Act;

  (2) how many voluntary supervised departures have been effected (a) in the period since the coming into force of the Immigration Act 1988 and (b) in the same period preceding the coming into force of the 1988 Act.
  460
  Mr. Renton
  Information on the numbers of deportation orders enforced, and of persons removed under supervised departure procedures is published quarterly in table 14 of Home Office statistical bulletin "Control of Immigration: Statistics". Figures up to the second quarter of 1988—the period immediately preceding that in which the Immigration Act 1988 came into force —were published on 16 September 1988 in issue 27/88; figures for the third quarter—during which the Act came into force—will be published in the next bulletin in this series on 15 December. The extension of the supervised departure procedures under the Act came into force on 10 July 1988, and the other provisions of the Act relevant to deportation procedures on 1 August.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons deported from the United Kingdom in 1988 were detained, prior to their deportation, for(a) 110 days or less, (b) more than 110 days but less than six months and (c) more than six months.

  Mr. Renton
  The readily available information is given below and does not include those detained who were subsequently released before deportation. A total of 262 of the persons deported between 1 January and 30 September 1988 were detained under the Immigration Act 1971 prior to removal for the following periods:

  Number

  Less than 3 months

  217

  3 to 6 months

  35

  More than 6 months

  10

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in 1988 how many persons who were not held in detention were deported(a) 110 days or less, (b) more than 110 days but less than six months and (c) more than six months after the decision to deport was intimated.

  Mr. Renton
  The readily available information is as follows:

  Ninety four persons who were not detained immediately prior to removal were deported under section 3(5)(a) and 3(5)(b) of the Immigration Act 1971 between 1 January and 30 September 1988. The number of cases and the respective periods between the issue of a notice of intention to deport and enforcement of the deportation orders were as follows:

  Number

  Less than 3 months

  11

  3 to 6 months

  6

  More than 6 months

  77

  Information about deportation orders enforced under section 3(6) is not available in the same way. These deportations follow the recommendation of a court and the length of time taken to enforce deportation, if the recommendation is accepted, will vary considerably depending on the length of any custodial sentence imposed by the court.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to allowing persons seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom who were aged 18 years or under and who were refused leave to enter and who wish to re-apply for leave relying on a DNA test to prove relationship.
  461
  Mr. Renton
  A person who makes a fresh application when he is 18 years of age or older will normally be expected to meet the requirements set out in paragraph 51 and 52 of the immigration rules. We have under consideration a number of cases of over-age reapplicants who do not qualify for admission under the rules, but we are not yet in a position to announce any general conclusion.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any proposals to introduce the DNA testing scheme for persons seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom; if he has determined what charges would be imposed for such a service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  My right hon. Friend announced on 26 July that we were considering whether DNA testing should continue to be left to private initiative or organised on a centrally run scheme. He indicated that the cost of any such scheme should not fall on the taxpayer. We shall announce our conclusions on these matters as soon as possible.

  Rugby Match (Breathalysing)
  Sir Ian Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will call for and publish a detailed analysis of the offences committed by, or reasons given for stopping and breathalysing, the 300 motorists who were stopped and breathalysed on leaving the varsity match at Twickenham on 6 December.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the commissioner that 408 motorists were stopped in the vicinity of Twickenham rugby stadium on 6 December under the provisions of section 159 of the Road Traffic Act 1972. One hundred and seventy five drivers were required to provide speciments of breath under the provisions of section 7(1) of the 1972 Act. All the tests were negative.

  Random Breath Testing
  Sir Ian Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make it his policy that random breath testing will not be introduced surreptitiously or in any other way without prior constitutional process following a full debate in the House.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Random breath testing should not be permitted without primary legislation to amend existing police powers contained in the Road Traffic Act 1972. Any such legislation would be subject to the normal process of debate in the House.

  NUS Demonstration
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has responded to the National Union of Students' request to set up a public inquiry into the National Union of Students demonstration on student loans held on Thursday 24 November; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on 29 November about the demonstration at columns 174-176. I see no grounds for a public inquiry and the National Union of Students is being advised accordingly.

  Police Numbers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the allocation of additional police officers for Leicestershire for 1989–90.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to announce his decision on the Leicestershire application, and others, for more police posts. He hopes to do so soon.

  Elections (Foreign Nationals)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will outline the nature of the proposals affecting the right of foreign nationals to vote in United Kingdom local elections and to stand for elected office which have been presented to the Council of Ministers by the Commission; when the directive will be considered; and if it will fall to be considered by majority vote in the Council.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Commission's proposals are the subject of an explanatory memorandum the Home Office submitted to the Select Committee on European Legislation on 17 October, copies of which are available m the Library. I understand that the proposed directive is not being actively considered by the Council. Since it purports to be based on article 235 of the treaty of Rome, action would require the unaninous support of the Council.

  Community Radio
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many areas are going to be designated for community radio franchises;

  (2) by what date the first batch of community radio franchises will be allocated;

  (3) what criteria will be used to decide which applications for community radio franchises are successful;

  (4) if any stages of the scrutiny of applications for community radio franchises will be held in public;

  (5) if he intends to have public consultations before allocating community radio franchises;

  (6) whether he will publish the applications of those who successfully bid for community radio franchises;

  (7) whether it is his intention that applicants for community radio franchises will be interviewed by the Independent Broadcasting Authority;

  (8) when it is his intention to place advertisements inviting applications for community radio franchises.

  Mr. Renton
  The Independent Broadcasting Authority's proposal to issue contracts for 20 new community radio stations was approved on 2 November this year. The geographical distribution of the new stations, the application procedure and the award of contracts are matters for the Independent Broadcasting Authority itself to determine, having regard to the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1981.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters of intent have been received by the Independent Broadcasting Authority prior to applications for community radio franchises.
  463
  Mr. Renton
  I am told by the Independent Broadcasting Authority that it has received 530 letters expressing interest in applying for a community radio station contract.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on whether public bodies should be able to contribute funds to community radio stations for the purposes of specific community programmes projects or training schemes.

  Mr. Renton
  We propose that new legislation should permit public authorities (and voluntary bodies in receipt of public funds) to give reasonable financial support to local (including community) radio stations for the purposes of projects intended to provide a specific benefit to the community, to promote the arts, or to provide training under a scheme approved by the Government.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many community radio stations will be on(a) FM and (b) AM;

  (2) whether any community radio franchises will be on the existing BBC FM sub-band.

  Mr. Renton
  Decisions on the assignment of frequencies will be taken after the IBA have received and considered formal applications for community radio franchises.

  Satellite and Cable Television
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will apply the same regulatory standards to satellite and cable programmes, receivable in the United Kingdom, as presently apply to the pre-recorded video cassette industry under the Video Recordings Act 1984.

  Mr. Renton
  In our White Paper "Broadcasting in the '90s': Competition, Choice and Quality" (November 1988, Cm. 517) we propose that all United Kingdom satellite, cable and microwave services should be subject to the strict consumer protection requirements set out in paragraph 6.10. These are not directly comparable with the requirements for the pre-recorded video cassette industry, because viewers obtain access to broadcast services and pre-recorded video cassettes under different circumstances. Our proposals for deterring unacceptable foreign satellite services receivable in the United Kingdom are set out in paragraphs 7.13 and 7.14 of the White Paper. Copies of the White Paper were placed in the Library.

  Interception of Communications
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria he uses in assessing whether a warrant is necessary in the interests of national security for the purposes of section 2(2)(a) of the Interception of Communications Act 1985.

  Mr. Hurd
  These matters are approached in the way set out when the 1985 Act was before Parliament—12 March 1985, col. 151-258—and in the preceding White Paper of February 1985 (Cm. 9438).

  Security Service
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish in the Official Report
  464
  the criteria he will use in assessing the extent to which, in given circumstances, national security will require the protection of the Security Service.

  Mr. Hurd
  No.

  Unlicensed Vehicles
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to when the Metropolitan police intend to mount their next special campaign in London to enforce the law in respect of unlicensed vehicles.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Police enforcement of the law in respect of unlicensed vehicles within the Metropolis is an operational matter for the commissioner, and we do not consider it necessary to ask for a report on his intentions.

  Prisoners (HIV)
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many male and female prisoners in England and Wales have been found to have contracted the human immunodeficiency virus since monitoring commenced in March 1985.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Two hundred and eleven cases (181 male, and 30 female) have been reported up to and including 8 December 1988. There is no evidence in any of the cases that the infection was acquired after the prisoner came into custody.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many male and female prisoners in England and Wales have contracted acquired immunodeficiency syndrome since monitoring commenced in March 1985.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Three cases had been reported up to and including 8 December 1988. All were male. The prisoners concerned have since been released. In each case the infection appeared to have been acquired before the prisoner came into custody.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have contracted either human immuno-deficiency virus, acquired immuno-deficiency syndrome or hepatitis B since March 1985 in the following prison establishments(a) Birmingham, (b) Lindholme, (c) Pentonville, (d) Wakefield, (e) Wandsworth, (f) Liverpool, (g) Maidstone, (h) Brixton, (i) Cardiff, (j) Manchester, (k) Wormwood Scrubs, (l) Parkhurst, (m) Long Lartin, (n) Reading, (o) Hull, (p) Leeds and (q) Leicester.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The available information, shown in the table, relates to cases reported between March 1985 and 30 November 1988 (HIV antibody positive and AIDS cases) and between April 1985 and March 1988 (hepatitis B cases in the acute and carrier states). There is no evidence from the central monitoring of cases in categories (a) and (b) that any of the prisoners concerned acquired the infection in prison. Cases in categories (c) and (d) are not similarly monitored.
  465

  Establishment

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  HIV Antibody Positive1

  AIDS1 2

  Hepatitis B (Acute)3

  Hepatitis B (Carrier)3

  Birmingham

  8

  1

  9

  10

  Lindholme

  —

  —

  3

  1

  Pentonville

  12

  —

  7

  15

  Wakefield

  1

  —

  1

  4

  Wandsworth

  12

  1

  6

  44

  Liverpool

  —

  —

  29

  35

  Maidstone

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Brixton

  29

  —

  4

  14

  Cardiff

  1

  —

  11

  7

  Manchester

  7

  —

  82

  18

  Wormwood Scrubs

  8

  1

  1

  19

  Parkhurst

  —

  —

  5

  3

  Long Lartin

  —

  —

  —

  11

  Reading

  3

  —

  —

  7

  Hull

  1

  —

  —

  9

  Leeds

  5

  —

  61

  43

  Leicester

  1

  —

  10

  5

  1 Cases in columns (a) and (b) have been allocated to the establishment at which the identification was first made.

  2 There is no reported case of AIDS in the prison population of England and Wales at present.

  3 In columns (c) and (d) the figures for Maidstone and Wandsworth are for two years only. Statistics for 1985–86 are not available.

  Animals (Experiments)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department and the Animal Procedures Committee have taken toward ending the use of animals in cosmetic and toiletry tests since the implementation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 8 December 1988]: The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 introduced a substantially more rigorous system of control over the conduct of scientific procedures on animals.

  The purpose of all work now has to be authorised by project licences and all project licence applications for the testing of cosmetic substances are scrutinised by the animal procedures committee and modified as necessary.

  In its first annual report laid before Parliament on 5 December, the APC identifies the difficult issues involved but concludes that in the interests of safety there should be no blanket ban on the testing of cosmetics and their ingredients.

  Mortgage Fraud
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps the Government are taking to combat the problem of mortgage fraud; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he will initiate discussions with the Building Societies Association and the Association of Mortgage Lenders on the problem of mortgage fraud with a view to mitigating the incidence of the problem.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Neither association has approached us or suggested that there is a widespread problem, and I see no need for specific Government action at present. But I shall keep the matter under review.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to how many cases of mortgage fraud the serious fraud office currently have under active prosecution and as to the estimated money involved.

  The Attorney-General
  I have been asked to reply.

  The serious fraud office is prosecuting before the courts three separate cases involving allegations of obtaining
  466
  mortgages by way of fraud. In two of the three cases the losses to lenders are estimated to be in excess of £6 million and £4-£5 million respectively. It is not yet possible to quantify accurately the sums of money involved in the third case.

DEFENCE

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

  Mr. Sainsbury
  0·93 per cent.

  "Spycatcher"
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it was with his authority and that of his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation ministerial colleagues that it was decided that a promotional campaign should be mounted for Peter Wright's book "Spycatcher" in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation bookshop in Brussels.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  RAF Planes (Noise)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the total number of noise objections received by his Department concerning Royal Air Force planes from(a) individuals and (b) local authorities for each year since 1983; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Inquiries and complaints specifically about noise from Royal Air Force aircraft are not recorded separately from general flying complaints, which often relate to a number of factors, of which noise may be one. Nor are local authority complaints recorded separately; it is not therefore possible to provide the details requested without disproportionate effort.

  Seaton Barracks
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to sell off the 40 acres of land at Seaton barracks, Plymouth, surplus to requirements.
  467
  Mr. Freeman
  Plymouth city council has asked us whether the land at Seaton barracks currently required for training could be released for industrial development. We are still in discussion with it.

  Battle Tanks
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the offset arrangements being offered by General Dynamics as part of its bid to secure the contract for the supply of the new battle tank.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No, but all relevant factors will be taken into consideration.

  Boeing (Offsets)
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the annual and total offset arrangements negotiated by Boeing with the United Kingdom, following the 1986 airborne warning and control system deal, are now being taken up by sales of Rolls-Royce engines to the third parties who have bought Boeing air frames; what proportion of each Rolls-Royce engine counts in this method of accounting; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The AWACS offset agreement allows for 35 per cent. of the value of any sales of Rolls-Royce engines to Boeing for civil aircraft to be counted towards the fulfilment of Boeing's offset obligation, subject to annual and aggregate ceilings. The maximum allowable over the offset period is $800 million. The value of any sales of Rolls-Royce engines to Boeing for military aircraft is allowed in full. Sales of Rolls-Royce engines to third parties would not be eligible for credit under the offset agreement.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how much of the estimated £150 million per year of contracts which Boeing estimated would be initially placed in the United Kingdom following the awarding of the airborne warning and control system deal in 1986, can now be identified; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how much, to the latest available date, Boeing has spent in the United Kingdom in connection with its offset agreement made at the time of the 1986 airborne warning and control system deal;

  (3) if he will place in the Library copies of the six-monthly submissions from Boeing listing the work they have placed and with which firms, in relation to the agreed offset deal negotiated following the 1986 airborne warning and control system deal; and if he will publish a regular review of these arrangements.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Boeing has to date submitted three progress reports claiming offset for contracts valued at $628·3 million. Of the contract values claimed in the first two reports $147·7 million has been approved and $77·5 million rejected as not complying with the agreement. The balance largely relating to contract values in the third report which has only recently been received is under evaluation. It is not our practice to release details of contracts which are commercially confidential.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the 40,000 new jobs due to be created as a consequence of the Boeing airborne warning and control system deal in 1986 can be identified; and if he will make a statement.
  468
  Mr. Sainsbury
  There is no job content in the AWACS offset agreement. Boeing's offset obligation to the MOD is financial and is measured in terms of the value and quality of contracts placed in the United Kingdom defence industry. We expect that the net effect on job numbers over the life of the offset programme will be very favourable.

  Thunderbolt Aircraft (Crash)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will call for an immediate report on the conditions of the crash on 8 December of the United States Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt aircraft from the United Kingdom Bentwater base; whether the aircraft was involved with other North Atlantic Treaty Organisation planes including any from the Royal Air Force; whether the aircraft was involved in low-flying exercises at the time of the crash; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The United States Air Force A-10 aircraft which crashed so tragically at Remscheid on 8 December had been on detachment from RAF Bentwaters to Noervenich in the Federal Republic of Germany. There was no Royal Air Force involvement.

  The accident is being investigated thoroughly by the United States Air Force and any conclusions relevant to flight safety will be made available to the appropriate NATO authorities in line with agreed procedures. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has sent a message of condolence to Dr. Scholz and the German people.

  Offset Agreements
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on the signature of new agreements containing counter-trade and offset processes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It remains the Department's policy to seek offset proposals from offshore companies when placing major orders overseas.

EMPLOYMENT

  Opencast Workings
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will commission an investigation of the link between dust from opencast workings and ill health and the report to Parliament.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Any proper investigation of links between opencast mining and ill health in people living nearby would require a long-term epidemiological study. There is no firm evidence that such a study would be worthwhile. However, the Health and Safety Executive will continue to monitor the position and will take account of any new evidence that may emerge.

  Employment Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many redundant iron and steel and mine workers who participated in ET will be likely to lose some of their redundancy-related payments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No redundant iron or steel worker who qualifies for the iron and steel employees rehabilitation
  469
  benefit scheme or mineworker who qualifies for assistance under the redundant mineworkers pension scheme, will lose any redundancy-related payment if they participate in employment training.

  Negotiations are continuing with British Steel plc to ensure that steel workers eligible to receive payments under their analogous employment and income security agreement will be similarly treated.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the overall budget for child care provision in ET, broken down by region; how many single parent trainees he estimates will benefit from these payments; and whether he has any plans to extend them to cover married parents.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There is no specific budget nationally or regionally for the payment of child care costs in employment training. Child care costs of up to £50 per week per child may be met for every lone parent who enters employment training and who needs their help. No target figure has been set for the total number of lone parents entering employment training. There are no plans to extend child care payments to trainees who are not lone parents.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the monthly statistics since September for employment training showing(a) entrants in each monthly period, and the number of cumulative entrants since the scheme started, (b) a breakdown of entrants which shows how many were male and female, the length of time they had been out of work, their ethnic backgrounds and whether or not they had any disabilities, (c) the number of trainees in each monthly period who entered work placements and the cumulative total of how many are in work places at the latest available date, (d) trainees who left the scheme in each monthly period, and the number of cumulative leavers since the scheme started, (e) for all those trainees who have left the scheme, how many found work, failed to attend, went on to another course of training or education, completed the course, left for sickness or went back into unemployment and (f) the total number of currently filled places for each standard Great Britain region.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The numbers of new entrants to employment training for each month up to November 1988 are shown in table 1. Comprehensive information on the sex, duration of unemployment, ethnicity and disabled status of those taking up employment training places is not yet available in the form requested. However there are some early indications of the proportion of entrants in each of these groups and this information is provided in table 2. Information is not collected on the numbers entering work placements and information on the numbers leaving employment training and their destinations on leaving is not yet available.

  The numbers on employment training for each standard region at 2 December 1988 shown in table 3.

  Table 1

  New entrants to Employment Training (Great Britain)

  Period

  Number of entrants

  4 September 1988—30 September 1988

  21,500

  1 October 1988—28 October 1988

  30,900

  31 October 1988—25 November 1988

  34,800

  Cumulative to 2 December 1988

  96,000

  470

  Table 2

  New entrants to Employment Training (Great Britain)

  Period: September 1988—October 1988

  Estimated percentages

  Sex

  Male

  70

  Female

  30

  Duration of Unemployment (prior to Employment Training)

  less than 6 months

  12

  more than 6 and less than 12 months

  35

  more than 1 year and less than 2 years

  15

  more than 2 years

  38

  Ethnic Origin

  White

  90

  Black African/Caribbean

  4

  Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi/Sri Lankan

  4

  None of these

  2

  People with disabilities

  6

  Table 3

  Filled places on Employment Training at 2 December 1988

  Region

  Filled places

  South East

  6,600

  London

  9,700

  South West

  6,000

  West Midlands

  10,800

  East Midlands

  8,000

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  14,500

  North West

  14,100

  Northern

  10,400

  Wales

  6,500

  Scotland

  9,900

  Great Britain

  96,700

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to promote employment training in the arts.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has no specific plans to do so. Arts organisations are welcome to take part in employment training and indeed arts training is already a feature of the programme.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to promote employment training in broadcasting.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has no specific plans to do so. Broadcasting organisations are welcome to take part in employment training and indeed some broadcasting skills are already a feature of the programme.

  Vacancies
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of vacancies notified to the employment service in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Lee
  The table shows the number of new vacancies notified to jobcentres, in the United Kingdom for each year from 1980 to 1987. The requested information is not available on the same basis for 1979.

  Recent research has confirmed that, nationally, about a third of all vacancies are notified to jobcentres.

  471

  Inflow of notified vacancies—United Kingdom

  Number

  1980

  2,119,640

  1981

  1,799,280

  1982

  1,991,490

  1983

  2,180,160

  1984

  2,326,830

  1985

  2,419,180

  1986

  2,546,380

  1987

  2,716,640

  School leavers
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many school leavers there were in Derbyshire in the summer of 1988: and how many people have not yet been employed or placed on a YTS scheme.

  Mr. Cope
  Information on the number of school leavers in the summer of 1988 for each local education authority is not yet available nor is information available on how many have not yet been employed or placed on a YTS scheme. However, at 31 October (the latest available date) there were 2,620 unfilled YTS places in Derbyshire. I am satisfied that the Training Agency has made sufficient places available to satisfy potential demand.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were employed in 1979 in manufacturing industry in the northern region; and what is the comparable figure for the latest date available.

  Mr. Lee
  In September 1979 there were 411,000 employees in employment in manufacturing industry in the northern region. In September 1988, the latest date for which comparable figures are available, the number was 262,000.

  Tourism
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps his Department is taking to encourage more private investment in the tourism industry.

  Mr. Lee
  Capital investment in the tourism and leisure sector is currently running at record levels. I have taken every opportunity to draw attention to the industry's growth potential in the many contacts I have had with different sectors of the industry and with representatives of financial institutions.

  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many major private sector companies are participating in the English Tourist Board's England for Excellence award scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  In 1988, the first year of the England for Excellence scheme 16 private sector companies provided sponsorship for individual awards. Representatives of a further 12 companies sat on the judging panels. The total cost of running the award scheme was covered by support from these private sector sponsors.

  YTS
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current average length of stay on YTS.

  Mr. Cope
  It is currently estimated that the average length of stay for entrants in 1988–89 will be 71 weeks for two-year entitlement trainees and 41 weeks for one-year entitlement trainees.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people of YTS eligible age, registered with jobcentres or the careers service were awaiting an offer of a YTS place; and how many of the unfilled places on the scheme available at those dates were on YTS schemes run by(a) employers and (b) agencies, at the end of October 1986, 1987, 1988 and at the most recently available date.

  Mr. Cope
  Information on the number of people of YTS eligible age awaiting an offer of a YTS place is not available nationally.

  The number of unfilled places on schemes run by employers and agencies at 31 October 1986, 31 October 1987 and 31 October 1988, the latest available date, is given in the table.

  Unfilled places

  On schemes run by employers

  On schemes run by agencies

  31 October 1986

  56,465

  72,996

  31 October 1987

  69,518

  108,167

  31 October 1988

  59,403

  59,055

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many YTS trainees were in receipt of a board and lodging allowance to undertake training away from their home at the end of October 1986, 1987 and 1988, respectively.

  Mr. Cope
  I regret that the information requested is not available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  YTS (Deaths)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give details, in the form given by the central health and safety unit annual accidents report, of the circumstances of the four fatalities which occurred during the period July to September.

  Mr. Cope
  On 5 August a trainee was working at a garage removing dust from the rear of a petrol tanker with an airline whilst the proprietor was welding a crack in the main tank. An explosion occurred causing extensive damage to the building and fatal injuries to the trainee.

  On 16 August a trainee electrician was working up a ladder on the side of a building clipping electric cables to trunking. It is understood that the trainee fell from the ladder and received fatal injuries.

  On 18 August a trainee was working on an agricultural engineering scheme where he was assisting the foreman who was replacing the rear boom of a mechanical digger/loader. The arm of the digger was supported on a tyre and a trolley jack. The driver of the digger/loader was asked to lower the jack and during this process the rear boom arm and the bucket collapsed and fell on the trainee causing fatal injuries.
  473
  On 14 September a trainee offered to drive a workmate (an electrician) to a job as the workmate's car had broken down. The trainee used his own car but on the way collided with a lorry after pulling out of a minor road. The workmate survived but the trainee received fatal injuries.

  The inquests or fatal accident inquiries on all four fatalities are still outstanding.

  Creches
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will introduce a legal requirement for the provision of creche facilities by employers.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No. The Government welcome action by employers to help employees combine work and family responsibilities through measures such as the provision of creche facilities, and flexible working practices, but considers that it is for individual employers to decide which arrangements best suit their and their employees' needs and resources.

  Careers Service
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans his Department has for the Inner

  Occupational injuries

  Year

  Fatal injuries to

  1Over 3 day injuries to

  Employees only

  Employees and self employed

  Non-fatal major injuries to employees and self employed

  Employees

  Employees and self employed

  (thousands)

  1974

  651

  ..

  ..

  577

  ..

  1975

  620

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  1976

  584

  ..

  ..

  553

  ..

  1977

  524

  ..

  ..

  579

  ..

  1978

  499

  622

  ..

  581

  ..

  1979

  492

  615

  ..

  509

  ..

  21980

  440

  579

  ..

  407

  ..

  1981

  444

  498

  12,407

  435

  ..

  1982

  471

  519

  12,413

  390

  ..

  1983

  447

  512

  12,567

  ..

  ..

  1984

  438

  498

  12,638

  ..

  ..

  1985

  399

  470

  13,381

  ..

  ..

  3 41986

  98

  108

  4,053

  ..

  ..

  51986–87

  356

  413

  20,872

  158

  159

  .. Not available.

  1 Over 3 day absences leading to claims for industrial injury benefit from DHSS, years starting on 1st Monday in June 1974–80. Claims as notified to HSE under the Notification of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (NADOR) for the calendar years 1981–82. The figures from 1974 to 1982 include absences caused by injuries currently classified as major. For 1986–87 see footnote 5.

  2 1978–80 fatalities include some to non-employees not covered by then existing legislation, but which were voluntarily reported.

  3 January to March.

  4 1981-March 1986 fatalities and major injuries to employees and self employed persons reported to the Health and Safety Executive or other appropriate enforcing authority under, and as defined in, the Notification of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (NADOR).

  5 Fatalities, major injuries and over 3 day absences to employees and self employed persons reported under, and as defined in the Reporting of Injuries Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, 1985 (RIDDOR) in the year commencing 1 April 1986.

  Occupational Diseases

  The total number of awards under the industrial injuries and disablement benefit schemes for cases of occupational disease arising between 1974 and 1987 is listed below. The figures quoted up to 1983 are for Injury and Disablement benefit cases combined; thereafter they relate only to Disablement Benefit.
  474
  London education authority careers service after the transfer of educational functions to inner London boroughs in April.

  Mr. Cope
  Local education authorities have the statutory duty to provide a careers service. After 1 April 1990 this responsibility will pass from ILEA to the inner London boroughs. Discussions are currently taking place with those boroughs and LEAs in the London area about the assumption of these duties and about whether there is a need for some central provision in support of local careers services.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list in the Official Report the total number of deaths at work, the total number of accidents at work and the total number of cases of workplace-related ill-health for each of the years 1974 to 1987 inclusive.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The available statistics, based on reported injuries covering all industries in Great Britain, are set out in the table below. It is believed that all cases of reportable fatal injuries are reported. Statistics for non-fatal major injuries, and over 3 day injuries for 1986–87, are believed to be significantly reduced by under-reporting.

  Year

  Awards total injury and disablement benefit

  1974

  16,010

  1975

  15,542

  1976

  15,829

  1977

  14,806

  1978

  13,912

  1979

  12,820

  1980

  11,435

  1981

  9,246

  475

  Year

  Awards total injury and disablement benefit

  1982

  8,267

  1983

  5,574

  Disablement Benefit

  1984

  3,628

  1987

  3,993

  1986

  4,975

  1987

  4,795

  Sex Discrimination Act 1975
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what individuals or organisations submitted responses to the consultation document on section 51 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 announced on 10 December 1987.

  Mr. Nicholls
  A total of 83 individuals and organisations submitted responses, including the Health and Safety Commission and the Equal Opportunities Commission, which have statutory functions relevant to the matters covered by the consultation document. The responses are being treated in confidence except where the individual or organisation concerned has chosen to publish.

  Disabled People
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons are registered disabled within the meaning of section 6 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944.

  Mr. Lee
  The number of people registered as disabled under section 6 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 on 18 April 1988, the latest date for which figures are available, was 374,238.

ENERGY

  Coal Industry (Manning Levels)
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the projected manning levels in the British coal industry for each of the next two years.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Government do not make such projections. The level of employment in the coal industry depends on a number of factors, including the industry's continued ability to raise its competitiveness.

  Offshore Safety
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent consideration he has given to the implementation of the recommendations of the Burgoyne report into offshore safety.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Many of the recommendations of the Burgoyne committee were either implemented before its report was published or shortly thereafter. The current offshore safety regime closely reflects that recommended by the Burgoyne committee.

  Electricity (Nuclear Generation)
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what effect the generation of electricity by nuclear power is likely to have on the price paid by consumers over the next five years.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Nuclear generation will help to protect electricity consumers from fossil fuel price increases. The cost of nuclear power is already contained in electricity prices.

  Severn Barrage
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest assessment of the earliest date at which the proposed Severn barrage could be providing electricity.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Severn estuary is one of the best potential sites in the world due to its exceptionally high tidal range. A barrage there would, if required, supply up to 6 per cent. of electricity demand in England and Wales in the year 2003 at the earliest.

  Severn Tidal Bore Generation Project
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to announce a final decision for the River Severn tidal bore water energy generation projects.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The current phase of studies by the Severn Tidal Power Group is nearing completion and a report is expected early next year. The report will not include financing and related issues, which will he addressed in the time scale of electricity privatisation. Thereafter it will be a matter for commercial judgment under the terms of the Electricity Bill before the House as to whether the project goes forward.

  Wave Energy
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the level of investment in research into wave energy.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The level of spend on research and development on the technology this year is expected to be about £150,000.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent representations he has received about his proposals for privatising the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I continue to receive representations on electricity privatisation. It is clear from my discussions with many interest groups that there is a large body of support for our proposals.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals he has for the staffing of the regulator's office consequent on the privatisation of the electricity industry.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) on Friday 9 November.
  477
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of how the privatisation of the electricity industry will benefit rural areas.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  We believe that our proposals will create a more efficient, economic and competitive industry for the benefit of all consumers.

  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are his latest proposals for the price controls which will operate in the event of privatisation of the electricity industry.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given earlier today to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe).

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much electricity is produced from(a) coal, (b) nuclear energy, (c) oil and (d) other sources; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  As state in tabled 9 of the Central Electricity Generating Board's annual report and accounts for 1987–88 (a copy of which is in the Library of the House) electricity supplied by the CEGB's power stations in 1987–88 was as follows:

  TWh

  Per cent.

  Coal

  186·4

  81·7

  Nuclear

  32·8

  14·4

  Oil

  9·3

  4·1

  Other

  -0·4

  -0·2

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment his Department has made of the relative cost of generating electricity by coal, oil and nuclear energy after taking account of the waste disposal and decommissioning investment allowed for.

  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.

  Director General of Gas Supply
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next intends to meet the Director General of Gas Supply; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next intends to meet the Director General of Gas Supply to discuss the implementation of the recent Monopolies and Mergers Commission report.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I regularly meet the Director General of Gas Supply and we discuss a range of matters of mutual concern.

  Marginal Oil Fields (North Sea)
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received on the effect of the Petroleum Royalties (Relief) and Continental Shelf Bill on the development of marginal oil fields in the North sea.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I hold frequent discussions about offshore developments with the oil industry. I am happy to 478
  say that I have had no adverse representations on the effects of the royalties Bill on marginal developments. Indeed, as I told the House on 30 November, Hamilton Brothers announced earlier this year that as a direct result of the Government's intention to abolish royalties in the southern basin it would develop the Ravernspurn north field.

  Retired and Redundant Miners
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will meet the chairman of British Coal to discuss the position of retired and redundant miners.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I meet the chairman of British coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

  CEGB
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board; and what subjects were discussed.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next intends to meet the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board; and what he proposes to discuss.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he will be meeting the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board; and what subjects he will be raising.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I regularly meet the Chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board to discuss a range of issues.

  Energy Needs
  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the percentage of United Kingdom energy needs in the year 2000 which will be met by coal, oil, gas, nuclear and renewables; and how these proportions vary from the present.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My Department has not published such estimates for several years. Experience of the energy market has shown that changes in the future composition of energy demand cannot be forecast with any certainty.

  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of the United Kingdom's total national energy needs was met by the private sector for the last year for which figures are available; if he will give the comparable figures for 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cecil Parkinson
  In 1987 the proportion of energy used which was produced in the private sector was 74 per cent.; this compares with 41 per cent. in 1979.

  Private Mines
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy to ease the restrictions on private mines within this Session of Parliament.
  479
  Mr. Parkinson
  As I said to the House on 7 November 1988 at column 2, changes to the statutory limits on licensed mining have been overtaken by our decision to privatise the coal industry in the next Parliament. In the meantime private mines should benefit from the opportunities from a more open market for coal in this country following the privatisation of the generating companies. I am exploring with British Coal the scope for greater flexibility towards licensed mining within the present statutory framework.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the total volume of waste produced by the generation of electricity by the nuclear industry in 1987; and what are the comparable figures for the coal industry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is an operational matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board. I have asked the chairman to write to my hon. Friend.

  British Coal
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next intends to meet the chairman of British Coal; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what issues were discussed.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next intends to meet the chairman of British Coal; and what matters he proposes to discuss.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I have regular meetings with the chairman of British Coal to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

  Atomic Energy Authority
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend last met the chairman of the AEA on 21 September 1988. A variety of matters were discussed.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next intends to meet the chairman of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority to discuss research allocations.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman from time to time to discuss these matters.

  Coal Industry Dispute
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what further representations he has received asking him to seek discussions with British Coal regarding the reinstatement of miners sacked during the 1984–85 coal strike; and if he will make a statement.
  480
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have nothing to add to the answer given by my right hon. Friend on 28 March 1988 at column 293.

  Double Glazing
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what new initiatives are planned to encourage or require house builders to install double glazing in all new houses.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Minimum standards of insulation for new housing are specified in building regulations. Draft regulations further increasing standards of thermal efficiency are at present under consideration by the Department of the Environment. In addition, the Energy Efficiency Office promotes a number of measures for improving the energy efficiency of housing, including double glazing where economic.

  Scottish Coal
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the impact of his privatisation proposal on the levels of imports into England of Scottish coal.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  None. After privatisation the sourcing of the coal British Coal supplies to its customers is a matter for commercial negotiations between the parties involved.

  North Sea Oil Rigs
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the de-commissioning costs of oil rigs in the North sea.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The estimates of abandonment costs remain very uncertain due to continuing uncertainties as to timing, technology and extent of removal. But for all existing installations and for those currently in the process of, or close to construction my Department currently estimates an aggregate abandonment cost of some £4 billion at 1988 prices.

  Coal Burn
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has to increase the Government's funding of research and development on clean coal burn; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The increase of over £1 million to £2·6 million next year in my Department's coal-based energy research and development budget will be used to support additional research on the clean use of coal.

  Coal Mining Subsidence
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has plans in the current parliamentary Session to introduce measures to improve compensation arrangements for those who suffer from the effects of coal mining subsidence.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Decisions on coal mining subsidence legislation will be taken after careful consideration of all comments received on the Government's consultation Paper issued earlier this year. The legislation will be introduced when the legislative timetable permits.

  Oil Fabrication Yards
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has recently held with individuals or groups who are concerned with achieving secure employment and orders for oil fabrication yards.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I have had a number of discussions recently about the oil fabrication industry. Only last week I chaired the offshore industry liaison committee, which includes representatives from the oil and supplies industries and trade unions when the situation in the fabrication industry and its prospects were reviewed. The upturn in UKCS oil and gas activity this year has provided improved opportunities for competitive yards.

  Southern Electricity Board
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the Southern Electricity Board; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I met the chairman of the Southern Electricity Board and the other area board chairmen on Monday 28 November. We discussed a range of issues concerning the privatisation of the electricity supply industry.

  Energy Saving
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if his Department plans any further advertising campaigns to promote energy saving.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  We continue to publicise and promote energy efficiency through a variety of means, including targeted advertising, for example "The Heat is On" campaign aimed at major energy using sectors of industry (chemical, ceramics and metal). A series of press advertisements was featured strongly in this campaign.

  North-East Coalfields
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the effects of electricity privatisation on the north-east coalfields.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for British Coal.

  British Gas
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next intends to meet the chairman of British Gas plc to discuss the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer given earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost).

  Wind Energy
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the level of investment in research into wind energy.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Government have invested over £25 million in wind energy research and are currently investing over £4 million annually. In addition United Kingdom industry, including the electricity supply industry is currently investing over £5 million annually.

  Coal Industry (Subsidy)
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the total subsidy paid to the coal industry over the last five years.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The Government have provided more than £7½ billion in financial support to British Coal in the last five years.

  Energy Efficiency Office
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the working of the Energy Efficiency Office.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  As I have already announced, the Energy Efficiency Office is entering a new phase in which it will offer more specific and targeted services with an emphasis on the regional offices.

  Rhoosecote Power Station
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on progress on the sale of Rhoosecote power station in Cumbria.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have asked the chairman of CEGB to write to my hon. Friend as a matter of urgency.

  Hinkley Point C
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his policy on the allocation of civil servants from his Department to assist the Hinkley Point C inquiry inspector, in the drafting of chapters of his final report.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend has provided the inquiry inspector with the resources and staff that he (the inspector) felt necessary to conduct the inquiry. It is a matter for the inspector to determine in which way to use these resources and to which tasks to allocate his staff.

  Departmental Offices
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many staff were accommodated in his Department's headquarters in 1986; how many he expects will be accommodated in the new offices in 1989; and in each case what is the area of office space per head.

  Mr. Parkinson
  In September 1986 the Department's headquarters occupied 242,419 sq ft, accommodating 814 staff in post. The new headquarters will have 184,000 sq ft and we expect to have 840 staff in post. Space per head is therefore 298 sq ft and 219 sq ft respectively.

  Coal Mining
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the numbers of those employed in the coal mining industry in each of the coalfield areas; and if he will also list the numbers employed by British Coal, giving the percentage in each case.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Information on the numbers of British Coal employees is a matter for the British Coal Corporation.

  Power Companies
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what will be the salaries of the chairmen and chief executives of the National Power Company, the Power Generation Company and the National Grid Company.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I shall be determining the salary levels to be paid at flotation in due course. After flotation salaries are a matter for the boards and their shareholders.

  Alternative Sources of Energy
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan,Official Report, 28 November, column 125, if he will urgently make it his policy to allocate the same amount of funds for research on alternative sources of energy, as is allocated for research on nuclear energy.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No. There is an inherent difference in scale, and hence in costs, between the R & D needed to achieve results in the different sectors. Nuclear R & D is at the development stage, which is also inherently more expensive than the research stage, at which much of the non-nuclear work is being done at present. The Government look at each research area and programme on its own merits, in the light of advice from ACORD, and allocate resources accordingly, rather than try to seek a spurious balance between them.

  Power Station (Malta)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will monitor the building of a new power station in Malta as a means of drawing lessons for the siting and nature of energy systems in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No.

  Generating Costs
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what have been the generation costs of power from 484
  coal-fired, oil-fired and nuclear plants, respectively, for the last wo years in England and Wales; and what have been the total generation costs for electricity from all types of stations.

  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.

  Drax Power Station
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects the Central Electricity Generating Board to place the order for the fluegas desulphurisation plant for the Drax power station.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for the board, but I expect the order to be placed shortly.

  Coinpower (Sale)
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has been notified by British Coal whether the sale of Coinpower has been completed.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for British Coal.

TRANSPORT

  Bus Undertakings
  Mr. Graham Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many bus undertakings have been subject to management buy-outs or worker share-holdings schemes since 1979.

  Mr. Portillo
  Thirty-nine National Bus Company subsidiaries have been acquired either wholly or partially by their managements or by their managements and staff jointly. One local authority owned bus company has also recently been taken over by its management and staff with an employee share ownership plan, and in another case the staff acquired a minority shareholding. We have no information available on such takeovers in the private sector.

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

Milk Quotas and Butter Mountains
Baroness Strange Baroness Strange asked Her Majesty's Government:
What effect milk quotas will have on butter mountains.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, thanks to the imposition of milk quotas and to the Community's stock disposal programme, intervention stocks of butter have been reduced from 1,323,000 tonnes in August 1986 to about 146,000 tonnes today.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her most encouraging reply. Can she tell me whether there are any other mountains which are likely to diminish? Would she agree at this festive period that if there were a small brandy lake it could be combined with the small remaining butter mountain and the whole thing might then be spirited away?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the comparisons that I shall give are based on the peak stocks in 1986 and are in percentage terms. UK stocks of butter are minus 86 per cent. and EC stocks minus 89 per cent.; skimmed milk powder, UK minus 100 per cent., EC minus 99 per cent.; beef, UK minus 68 per cent., EC minus 23 per cent.; cereals, UK minus 75 per cent., EC minus 45 per cent.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as a milk producer I should like to ask the Minister whether she will ensure that her ministerial colleague at the Department of Health does not betray her lack of knowledge of the milk industry as she recently betrayed her lack of knowledge of the egg industry.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in the context of that question, I am very busy trying not to get egg on my face.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House how many weeks supply the present reduced stockholding of butter in the Community represents in relation to consumption?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I cannot. However, I believe that the figures speak for themselves. It is good news and it would be a great pity if anyone were to try to take away from that achievement.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I think that we all share the noble Baroness's pleasure at the news even
758
though the present position has been achieved at some cost to the consumer in terms of stock disposal. What I was trying to get from the noble Baroness was information as to the level of consumption of butter in relation to stockholding, because some of us are beginning to fear that there is a possibility of physical shortages of food in the Community. It was that aspect of the question in which I was interested.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, supplies are naturally seasonal. I can assure the noble Lord that there will not be shortages of milk.
Lord Marley: My Lords, does my noble friend think that the reduction in the size or the Russian tank forces will have any effect on the butter mountain?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I think that is another question.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that a number of farmers suffered in 1984 as a result of the quotas? Has she noted the judgment of the European Court, known as the Mulder judgment, which recommends that the Commission should reduce intervention prices to pay compensation to those farmers? Do Her Majesty's Government support that proposal in respect of intervention prices?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, with regard to the Mulder case, there is a legal requirement for the Community to act, and the Council is considering proposals from the Commission. We shall aim for a solution which is consistent with the court's judgment and which does not disadvantage existing quota holders and above all maintains the effectiveness of the quota system.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that for a long time the butter mountain was built up at the expense of a lack of milk for cheese-making? Has that situation now changed?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, with regard to cheese, virtually the same reply pertains as the one which I gave earlier in relation to seasonal fluctuations in the UK domestic liquid milk supply. The arrangements for cheese adopted this year by the industry to minimise the effect of quotas seem to have worked well. In the longer term 1 welcome the MMB's new seasonality payment scheme and I hope that producers will respond positively.

Educational Visits: Travel Charges
2.40 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards charging for the travel elements of educational visits.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Education Reform Act maintains the principle of free school education. If an educational visit takes place during

759
normal teaching time there can be no charge to pupils for the cost of arranging the visit, or for any associated travel. Charges may only be made if the visit is arranged as an optional extra activity out of school hours, in which case an element for the cost of travel may be included in the price.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. Is he aware that the principle of making no charge for any travel connected with activities relating to the curriculum or examinations is very welcome? But is he also aware that field trips, for example for geography or for botanical purposes, may take the children some distance from the school and be very expensive? Will the department give LEAs enough money to fund those journeys which have not always in the past been funded from school funds?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right. The overriding policy is that provision of activities during school time has to be free but that out of hours activities can be charged for if LEAs and schools so choose. However, the Act prohibits charging in respect of activities required to fulfil statutory duties relating to the national curriculum, to religious education or as part of a syllabus for prescribed public examinations, even if such activities take place out of school hours.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that recreational journeys away from school premises are widely recognised as a valuable part of outdoor educational programmes, especially for pupils in urban areas and those who do not shine in organised games? Is he further aware—which I know he cannot be—that a number of heads of schools have told me of their concern lest the effects of Section 106 of the Act will be to deny those experiences to the very pupils who stand to gain most benefit from them because of a combination of a lack of available authority funds and unwillingness or inability of parents to pay?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for informing me of something about which I was not informed previously. The charging provisions reaffirm the principle of free school education. They safeguard valuable optional activities outside school hours by allowing charges to be made. They allow schools to seek voluntary contributions toward any activity, provided that they are truly voluntary. We believe that parents who have hitherto been willing to pay for many activities during school hours will not now suddenly refuse to contribute voluntarily, so ensuring that the activity can take place, provided that they are convinced that that activity is educationally worthwhile.
Baroness White: My Lords, will the noble Viscount give some reassurance to the House and to those of us who are interested in field study or outdoor pursuit centres which are run by educational trusts, usually in collaboration with a local education authority, that if that provision is interpreted too rigidly, some of
760
those centres which do invaluable work will not simply become insolvent? I think particularly of an admirably run charitable trust centre at Rhos-y-Gwaliau near Bala which is run in collaboration with the Berkshire education authority. The centre assures me that it simply will not be able to carry on unless children are allowed to attend for periods during the school term, which obviously must include some school hours. Yet the centre does the most splendid work and so far has managed to subsist satisfactorily on voluntary contributions. Will the local authority now be precluded from doing anything?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, there is no question of the Government imposing charges on anyone. What has now been made clear in the Act is what LEAs and schools can charge for if they so choose, and what they cannot charge for. The power to charge is in all cases discretionary. Perhaps I should just tell the House that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will be making regulations requiring schools to publish information about their hours so that parents will know whether any specific activity falls in or out of school time.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that we are trying to get a point over to the Minister and not doing it very successfully? Will the department make sure that there are sufficient funds available for LEAs and schools to continue to carry out the excellent work that they have been doing in visiting these field centres throughout the British Isles?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I have said that my right honourable friend is producing regulations, and I think that point will be made clear when they are published.
Lord Peston: My Lords, we welcome the Education Act which made it very clear that there should be no charge for school activities. However, does the noble Viscount appreciate the paradoxical result of that measure; namely, that activities such as a foreign trip, which is the best way to improve language training and teaching in this country, will be precluded from the educational experience of most children because there is no way of charging and the local authorities do not have the resources for them? Is it not right that if there is to be no charging and if the national curriculum is to succeed, then his right honourable friend the Secretary of State must provide much more in the way of resources to the schools?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend will take note of the noble Lord's remarks. I must say that the basic feature of the new legislation is that it prohibits charges for any activities during the school day. Parents can contribute voluntarily to such activities, but it must be made clear to them that there is no obligation upon them to contribute and that the pupils will not be treated differently according to whether or not their parents have contributed.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is not only field trips in regard to geography and so on that could be affected but also trips to some theatres and cinemas which put on special performances, for instance, of plays set for examinations? I have today received a letter from the Aldeburgh Cinema which said that not only have they put on films of set plays but also performances by Ossian Ellis and Yehudi Menuhin and that the schools can claim a third of the fares from the Regional Arts Association. Is the noble Viscount aware that this sort of thing could be lost unless the Government are prepared adequately to fund the local authorities when the expense is put upon their shoulders?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I can see that there is a great deal of feeling about this matter in the House. All I can do at this stage is to make sure that my right honourable friend is made aware of what has been said.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, will my noble friend make it plain that there is nothing whatever obscene in some educational activities being voluntarily funded other than by state funds?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, under the Act the charging situation will be much cleaner and better. It will be better known to parents and LEAs than it has been in the past.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is it not more obscene that children who might benefit from such activities are denied them because of their parents' lack of wealth?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not believe that this can happen.

School Governors: Police Appointments
2.49 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the position of police officers wishing to become members of school governing bodies.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, police officers who are considering service as a school governor should ensure that their chief officer has no objection.
Baroness David: My Lords, is it the Government's intention that police officers who are not parents of children at the school should be appointed as governors? I have received a communication from one area of the country which states specifically that police officers shall not take on the duties of school governor unless they are parents. The explanation is that this would mean that resources would be engaged in that way. May we know the Government's attitude to that?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it has always been one of the principles of the Police Service that police officers have to be seen to be totally impartial in the
762
discharge of their duties. It is for the chief officer to try to ensure this, as police forces are under his direction and control.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in rural areas in parricular, where a policeman is invited to serve on the governing body as a representative of the community, the liaison between the police and the school is first class? He is acting as a member of the community and as a police officer, and this is good. This is surely a most enlightened aspect that we were trying to accomplish through the 1988 Act.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. It is absolutely right that police officers should in certain circumstances be allowed to be governors of schools. I would not expect the circumstances in which there is a potential conflict of interest between an individual's employment and service as a school governor to arise very often.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, has the Minister seen the picture of the sergeant and six children on the front page of the magazine Police, which many noble Lords may have received? Such a sergeant would make an excellent governor of a school.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I have seen it.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the noble Viscount go a little further? He used the expression "conflict of interest". Many of us fail to see how there could ever be a conflict of interest. The argument goes all the other way. There is an enormous concatenation of interest between the police as members of the community and their work as police officers. It would be a great pity if any chief constable were to take the view that there were difficulties when most of us believe that there are no likely difficulties.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that may be so. However, there is at the moment a Court of Appeal judgment in a case of this nature. I cannot comment on this any further, as the Police Federation is seeking leave to appeal to the House of Lords at the moment on that case.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the department putting forward any evidence or taking a line about which way this matter should go?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, not so far as I know.

Ozone Layer: 1989 Conference Aims
2.54 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What will be the immediate aims of the proposed international conference on the ozone layer and the greenhouse effect, to be held in the United Kingdom in 1989.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the aim of the conference which will be held in London on 5th to 7th March next year is to secure increased support for existing international efforts to protect the ozone layer. In particular we hope that the conference will recruit further signatories to the Montreal Protocol, improve awareness of the facts concerning depletion of the ozone layer, and highlight the practical opportunities for realising the reduced emissions of chlorofluorocarbons for which we are calling.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply and congratulate the Government on this initiative which is especially relevant now that depletion of the ozone layer has been observed both over the Arctic and the Antarctic. Can my noble friend indicate how many countries are likely to attend the conference and whether other atmospheric problems, such as acid rain, will be discussed?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I cannot tell my noble friend how many countries will be attending the conference. I hope a great many developed and developing countries will attend.
The answer on other matters such as acid rain is, no, we want to limit the conference to the ozone layer.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, may I tell the Minister—
Noble Lords: No, no! Question!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there must be some form of words.
Noble Lords: You may ask, "Is he aware?".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is it possible to convey to the Minister that we on these Benches strongly support any efforts by the Government to strengthen the control of the chemicals which cause damage to the ozone layer? We welcome the conference to which the Minister has referred. Will he draw to the attention of his colleagues the recent report by the Worldwatch Foundation in Washington, which claims that there is a serious risk that depletion of the ozone layer of up to 20 per cent. could occur in densely populated areas within 40 years? Does that not increase the urgency of the efforts that are required?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his welcome of the government action on this. It is precisely for the reasons that the noble Lord has mentioned that we felt it right to call an international conference. It will be basically for governments. It will complement the UNEP Conference in Helsinki in April which will be looking at the possibility of improving the Montreal Protocol.
I can inform the House that we have offered to host the second Montreal Protocol Revision Conference in 1990 in London. This has been accepted by the Executive Director of UNO.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, does the noble Earl know whether China and India will be attending the conference?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not know at the moment but my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is now in China with an invitation to them to attend.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, has my noble friend noted the valuable contributions already made at the recent conference in London on 28th and 29th November? Some of these contributions came from Members of this House.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, indeed. We are again fortunate in this House to have many experts on this subject, but we welcome all contributions from every part of the world.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, has the noble Earl noted that one of the causes of the greenhouse effect is deforestation in some countries and the lack of afforestation in others, including this country?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, of course the noble Lord is right to point out the link between afforestation or deforestation and the greenhouse effect. The conference next year will be dealing solely with CFCs—the man-made product.

City of Glasgow District Council Order Confirmation Bill
2.56 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936 deemed to have been read a second time, and reported to the Committee.

Privileges: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That in accordance with Standing Order 73, the Select Committee for Privileges be appointed; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords, together with the Chairman of Committees and any four Lords of Appeal, he named of the Committee:

Belstead, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Caccia, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Denham, L.

Ferrers, E.

Glenamara, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Shackleton, L.

Stedman, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Wigoder, L.

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

Leave of Absence and Lords' Expenses: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed for the general supervision of arrangements relating to "leave of absence and the reimbursement of Lords' expenses; and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

Denham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Tordoff, L.

Walston, L.

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

Consolidation Bills: Joint Committee
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That pursuant to Standing Order 49 the Lords following be appointed to join with a Committee of the Commons as the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills:

Airedale, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Gisborough, L.

Grey, E.

Hanworth, V.

Jauncey of Tullichettle, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Lockwood, B.

Lowry, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Strabolgi, L.

That the Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee from time to time be printed and, if the Committee think fit, be delivered out.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Iron Casting (Scientific Research Levy) (Abolition) Order 1988
2.58 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th October be approved [36th Report from the Joint Committee, Session 1987–88].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this order which falls under Section 9 of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947, is to abolish the Iron Casting Industry (Scientific
766
Research Levy) Order 1971. The effect of the order is to abolish a statutory levy which imposes a levy on the iron casting industry, collected by the Department of Trade and Industry, and given in full to BCIRA (fomerly known as the British Cast Iron Research Association).
The activities of BCIRA need to be viewed against the background of the iron casting industry. Most companies would find it difficult to support their own research activities but they are nevertheless of vital importance to British manufacturing industry generally. The research organisation provides the whole of the iron castings industry with a wide range of services which include general scientific research and contract research, as well as consultancy and advisory services. The high standard and practical usefulness of the association's work is very highly regarded and widely recognised.
The Government, however, question the need for a levy. The scientific research levy contributes towards the costs of the general scientific research undertaken by BCIRA. The levy is currently collected from industry under the provisions of Section 9 of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947. The levy was first introduced in 1966 and has been subsequently amended in 1971, 1976, 1979 and 1983 to assure that it provides a fair income to BCIRA from industry. The levy is made up of two components. First, it pays 0·15 per cent. of the emoluments of those employed in the industry. Secondly, it pays an amount per tonne on fettled castings produced in industry. The amount per tonne is linked to fettled castings; this amounted to 29p per tonne in 1988 and has been regarded as an equitable way of raising a research levy.
But the proposal to abolish the statutory collecting of the levy has to be viewed against the Government's policy of disengaging from industry. We believe that this disengagement creates an environment in which industry thrives. Thus BCIRA will be able to prove itself and show industry that it can help industry to face the challenge of the future and, in particular, the challenge of the single market in 1992 and beyond.
Section 9 of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947 requires that major organisations which represent both the industry and the people employed in it be consulted. This has been done. Some consider that the statutory levy should continue to be collected by the department, but no argument has been presented to demonstrate that those who contribute without objection to a statutory levy will not contribute voluntarily to BCIRA. The voluntary system will enable BCIRA co respond to the needs of industry and I believe that it will become fitter and better able to serve the industry. Deregulation is necessary to help industry to thrive and industry should look after its own affairs. Over the years the contribution of the levy in percentage terms towards BCIRA's total income has fallen from 42 per cent. in 1980 to 26 per cent. currently. Thus the levy represents a declining part of BCIRA's income which has been made up by expanding contributions from contract research licence fees, overseas subscriptions, and other miscellaneous income. The pessimists' view is that it might lose some £200,000 of its income if the statutory levy is abolished from a

767
total income of over £2·5 million. But this has not happened in the case of other research associations from which a levy has been removed.
The Iron Castings Industry (Scientific Research Levy) is the only remaining scientific research levy. Statutory levies for the hosiery and knitwear, wool, furniture and cutlery industries have already been abolished and the respective research organisations have all subsequently thrived. It is not apparent why BCIRA is special and why it should be the only research organisation, of which there are around 40, to be supported by a statutory levy. I stress that it is industry that should decide its own research costs and that the Government should not impose such costs upon it.
The costs of collecting the money are small compared to receipts, but the department has been incurring such costs for over 20 years. The way of collecting receipts is a well developed system and my department will help to transfer this, though it must be done within the limits of our legal system. We shall be as helpful as we possibly can. It has also been customary, where other statutory levies have been abolished, to give the appropriate research organisation a reasonable period in which to adapt to the new circumstance. This has been the subject of negotiations with BCIRA and the statutory collection of the levy will, according to the abolition order, end on 30th June 1990. Thus the organisation will have had from the initial announcement of the intention to abolish the levy, almost two years to adjust to the new circumstances. I believe that these are generous terms.
During the consultation process, the argument was presented that the situation of over 20 years ago which led to the introduction of the statutory levy would return, that foundries would become suspicious of each other and would be reluctant to contribute voluntarily to BCIRA. I do not believe that to be so. A statutory instrument is an impediment and I am firmly convinced that companies now recognise that research is essential for progress to be made and that there is more realism in approaching the future. To abolish this levy will lead to a challenge for BCIRA—a challenge I am sure that it is more than able to meet. I am sure that it will be able to prove its worth to the industry and help the industry develop in the coming years. I invite your Lordships to support this measure and I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th October be approved [36th Report from the Joint Committee, Session 1987–88].—(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Peston: My Lords, in responding to the draft order I do not wish to delay the House excessively, but there are a number of questions that I need to raise. First, there is no disagreement between us on the importance of research in an industry of this kind. The fundamental question is not whether research is desirable, but how it is to be financed. The normal economics are that, if we are discussing fundamental research the benefits of which accrue to the whole industry, it is not in the interests of any individual manufacturer to finance that research because the
768
individual bears the cost and receives only a small fraction of the benefit. We have what in economics is known as the free rider problem. It is for that reason that research of this kind in industries of this kind has been seen to be financed by a compulsory levy.
In his statement the Minister is arguing that that analysis is mistaken. One has to ask whether one really can be that confident at a time when we all agree that the future of British industry depends on a research base, when what we need are the most advanced, highly value-added industries, and when we ought not to be taking any risks whatever in the funding of research. The Minister has referred to other research organisations from which the Government have disengaged. I have said that I do not want to delay your Lordships or engage in an enlarged debate on research, but it is not my view in most of the cases that he cites that the research is thriving to the degree that he says.
I agree that the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. We shall see whether appropriate research will take place on a scale that industry requires; by that I do not mean merely maintaining the scale but enlarging the scale that industry requires. In particular I do not know whether research for the industry will take place as opposed to specific items of research for particular firms.
I put these points to the noble Lord to emphasise our differences. He used the word "pessimists". He heard me last week saying that I am always a pessimist on all matters because I believe that that is the role of the economist. But I am extremely pessimistic in an area where quite separate from privatisation or nationalisation, one wants the industry to thrive. I am extremely pessimistc about a move by the Government in what I believe is the wrong direction. I believe that the right direction is to increase the levy and public involvement in fundamental research.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I do not in the least wish to delay the House but in making his statement the noble Lord said, as is so often said from the Government Front Bench, that he was "confident" and that he "believed". In fact he made assertions. We are always hearing assertions of faith from the Front Bench. It is the noble thing to do, but it does not give us the reasons or the facts to back up the faith. Can he tell us why and what his evidence is that all will be well in the future and not merely that he has faith that all will be well? I fear that our faith wears a little thin.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I believe that it is worth looking back to try to remember why a limited number of the industrial research associations were placed on a levy basis in the first instance. This was regarded as appropriate where the industry consisted of a rather large number of small firms operating locally—typically a local foundryman. They are not science-based. They are craft industries operating foundrywork on a traditional basis. A limited number of similar industries had their research and development carried out by a very much smaller number of science-based people working with them in parallel who were naturally somewhat jealous of

769
the fact that scientific advances, such as in malleable cast iron, should be put at the disposal of people who were not really in a position to evaluate the real benefits and merits of research and development.
By imposing a levy on everyone, one opens the science-based advances of bigger firms and puts them at the disposal of the smaller firms. The levy now appears to be wound up and I accept the assurance of the noble Lord that this is the last of the Mohicans, as it were, and that the levies have now ended. They were characteristic of only a small number of the 40 industrial research associations. They were appropriate at the time of introduction and I am sorry to see them going.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I do not wish to detain the House for much longer. However, I should like to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that we are talking only about a levy. Only 26 per cent. of the income of the BCIRA comes from the levy and it will continue to be financed by the Department of Trade and Industry in the shape of a grant. There is no reason why that should not continue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, expressed concern that everything would not go well in the future for that research organisation. I said that similar organisations have done well and there is no reason why this organisation should not continue to do so—
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should like to know what is the evidence about them having done well. If the noble Lord were to say that such-and-such a research foundation gave up a levy and since this and this has happened, that would be credible. Merely to be told that they have "done well" does not tell us anything.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sorry that I do not appear to have satisfied the noble Baroness but the form of words which I have is that they have "continued to thrive".
The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, was right in saying that 20 years ago various industries needed such organisations because they were unaware of the work of research and development. However, in recent times, since the work has continually been shown to be valuable, it is more obvious that the industries are keener to carry out their own research and development. For that reason we believe the levy to be no longer necessary.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I do not like to break the rules and interrupt the Minister, but a precise point has been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and by me. Although everyone says that research is important there is no evidence that British industry is engaging in any more research. That is the nature of the problem. The Government are apprised of the matter and so are we. The problem is that British industry does not appear to be apprised of it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

King's Cross Underground Fire
3.12 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara) rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the investigation into the King's Cross Underground fire (Cmnd. 499).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a sad and solemn occasion for debate. On 18th November 1987 a fire broke out on the Piccadilly line escalator at King's Cross Underground station. It began beneath the escalator, but the flames spread up the escalator, and burst into the hooking hall. Tragically, 31 people died.
Before I speak further I should like to say that, as noble Lords will be aware, at 8.20 this morning a very serious train accident occurred approximately 300 yards west of Clapham Junction on the Southern Region. The 6.14 a.m. Poole to Waterloo train ran into the rear of the 7.18 a.m. Basingstoke to Waterloo train. Both those trains were full of passengers. An empty train from Waterloo then ran into the wreckage. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be making a Statement about the accident in another place. I am sure that your Lordships will wish to join me in expressing our deepest sympathy to the bereaved and the injured.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I now return to the King's Cross disaster. Clearly a full inquiry had to be set up into so shocking a disaster. Within a week of the fire the Government appointed Mr. Desmond Fennell, QC to make a formal investigation into the fire under the Regulation of Railways Act 1871. Public hearings were held, lasting no less than 91 days, in which evidence was heard from 150 witnesses, and scientific studies were carried out to explain how a small fire grew into something with such dreadful results. Mr. Fennell's report was published by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on 10th November this year. The report concluded that the immediate cause of the fire was a lighted match falling into grease and detritus which had built up beneath the escalator and which ignited, with the terrible results that we all know.
Those are the bare facts which provide the occasion for this debate. Before going on to say something about the lessons to be learnt from the fire, I know that your Lordships will want me to pause to offer again our condolences to all those who were bereaved by the fire and our sympathy to those who were injured.
Noble Lords: Hear, Hear.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, although it is more than a year since the disaster, and time is supposed to heal wounds, we all know that it will be a long time before those who suffered loss or injury will be able to come to terms with, let alone forget, the consequences of that terrible night. And we pay tribute to the courage and dedicatior displayed by the members of the emergency services on that night.

771
We cannot forget that one brave fireman, Station Officer Townsley, lost his life trying to save another; and we recall also the courage shown by men like PC Hanson of the British Transport Police, in helping people to escape.
Mr. Fennell rightly said that his investigation had only one goal; to establish the cause of the tragedy and try to ensure that it never happens again. I am sure that your Lordships will wholly endorse that objective. Mr. Fennell found serious shortcomings in London Regional Transport and London Underground; and, as noble Lords will know, the chairmen of both organisations have since had their resignations accepted by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Mr. Fennell had lessons for many other organisations, including the emergency services and, I acknowledge, central government.
Mr. Fennell makes 157 specific recommendations, in four categories of importance. Many of these recommendations are of course directed to London Underground. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has asked London Regional Transport to institute prompt action on all of those and to inform him promptly of any that present serious difficulties. He has drawn attention particularly to Mr. Fennell's recommendations on safety audit by LRT and on safety management by LUL, on the specific steps necessary to prevent such a disaster happening again, and the review of the Underground ticketing system.
Noble Lords will know that, well before publication of the report, London Underground had instituted its own action programme, so that it was already pursuing many of Mr. Fennell's recommendations. For example, changes in safety organisation have been made. Partly this is reflected in new appointments; a LUL non-executive board member with particular interest in safety, a chief safety inspector and a fire officer.
We have been informed of other such organisational changes, including the setting up of a safety audit committee of the board of London Regional Transport, which meets every month and which is intended to help LRT to discharge its statutory safety duty to which Mr. Fennell drew particular attention. This committee reflects the safety audit system which has been established throughout London Underground with a view to ensuring that safety is checked and also that necessary information (for example, on accidents and the follow-up action necessary) is passed to senior management. This system supplements, but does not replace, the direct management responsibility for safety which is also reflected in a reorganisation whereby each Underground line has its own general manager responsible directly to the passenger services director.
I understand that London Underground has also instituted new training arrangements for all station staff and that its supervisors have had fresh training in fire and safety procedures, including the use of waterfog (the water sprays under escalators); and new, continuing, programmes have been established in the light of advice from outside consultants. As to
772
physical measures, new automatic fire detection and alarm systems have been installed under all wooden escalators; new cleaning procedures have been introduced; and London Underground tell us that all wooden escalators are being inspected every two hours and that the waterfog is tested weekly.
Clearly much remains to be done under this action programme. Many noble Lords will have already seen the results of the programme of stripping wooden panelling from escalators, and will appreciate at first hand the balance that has to be struck between the needs of that programme, and the need to avoid congestion as far as possible. Less apparent is London Underground's programme of installing automatic sprinklers beneath escalators; and, organisationally, the joint working with London Fire Brigade of which London Underground has told us—for example, in reissuing all station plans and ensuring that they are kept in station locations agreed by the brigade, and in agreeing rendezvous points at stations with the brigade.
I know that a number of noble Lords take special interest in the new Underground ticketing system, with its automatic barriers, which is in the process of being introduced. Mr. Fennell recommended that that system be reviewed; but of course not only London Underground itself, but also the Railway Inspectorate and the London Fire Brigade have already been involved in that issue—as one would expect. Therefore, it would not start any review with a clean sheet of paper. Noble Lords may therefore be pleased to learn that London Regional Transport has agreed to a request from my honourable friend the Minister of State to appoint outside consultants to conduct this review.
I have spoken in a little detail (although still very selectively) about London Underground's actions, because I felt that noble Lords would wish to hear something of its response to Mr. Fennell's report. Nonetheless, it is clearly necessary for London Underground to press on unremittingly in following-up what Mr. Fennell had to say. I have felt it right to inform your Lordships' House of the Government's understanding of the steps London Regional Transport is taking in the light of the disaster; but I am sure that LRT recognises as clearly as your Lordships that much remains to be done and that safety depends on consistent effort, long after any particular action programme may have finished.
I also recognise of course that central government too have an important role to play. Many noble Lords will have the question of finance in mind. I do not think that your Lordships' House would want a debate on this serious topic to be reduced to party point scoring, but the question should clearly be addressed. Mr. Fennell himself said:
"In my judgment there is no evidence that the overall level of subsidy available to London Regional Transport was indequate to finance necessary safety-related spending and maintain safety standards".
He then went on to say on what he based that statement:
"I accept the evidence of the most senior management in London Regional Transport and London Underground that if funds were needed funds were available",

773
although he proceeds again to comment on the separate question of how the available resources were allocated and used by London Underground.
Quite apart from Mr. Fennell's conclusion, I can remind the House that London Underground's investment in the current financial year—£230 million—is over 60 per cent. more in real terms than its level in 1984–85, when central Government took over responsibility for London Regional Transport from the GLC. Indeed, capital spending by London Underground in each of the years since that transfer to central Government (including the plans for next year) has been or will be higher in real terms than in any of the last five years of GLC control.
I hope noble Lords would agree that safety need not be incompatible with proper and efficient use of resources—on the contrary indeed. Noble Lords may be aware that the 1984 letter setting out LRT's objective, which has been referred to elsewhere, did contain a clear reference in its very first paragraph to the statutory duties of LRT, which expressly include safety. The objectives which followed were included in that letter only after they had been discussed with, and agreed by, the Chairman of London Regional Transport.
However, noble Lords will want this to be a constructive debate, and in that spirit it is right to look to the future. I am glad to repeat the assurance given by my right honourable friend in another place that the Government have already provided in full for all the proposals already put to us for spending on Underground safety; these total £266 million over the next three years. I also gladly repeat the words of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State when I say that finance will not be a barrier to any of the recommendations in the Fennell report being implemented. I do not think noble Lords would expect a government spokesman to say anything less.
There are other important issues for central Government, in addition to finance. Some of these concern the Railway Inspectorate, which has been below strength—a source of concern to Mr. Fennell. I am glad to say that since my right honourable friend made a statement in the other place last month, further good progress has been made with the recruitment exercise to bring the inspectorate up to complement, and we hope to have made a number of appointments by the end of January. This follows salary increases which have been implemented for the main inspector grade.
My right honourable friend also referred to the special investigation which the Railway Inspectorate is going to make, examining London Underground's safety management systems, and monitoring its implementation of LUL's action programme. I think many noble Lords would agree that alongside physical equipment, it is important to make sure that management systems work, and that decisions, once taken, are carried out. I am glad to be able to tell your Lordships that, with help from the Health and Safety Executive and the London Fire Brigade, the team for this study has now been established and has started work, with a view to completing its task, if all goes well, in March of next year.
774
One of the areas to which Mr. Fennell also drew attention was the uncertainty of law on fire certification, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary intends to make an order to resolve that uncertainty. Furthermore, my right honourable friend intends to make regulations under Section 12 of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 to require specified fire precautions at all Underground stations. The Home Secretary takes the view that this is the most effective and quickest way to introduce uniform standards without uncertainty, and of addressing as many as possible of the fire precautions recommendations contained in Mr. Fennell's report. I can tell your Lordships' House that the Home Office has now started the consultation process required by the Act so that these regulations can be made soon.
The regulations themselves will be enforced by the local fire authority, thus giving them a clear and precise enforcement role in respect of fire alongside the wider-ranging role of the Railway Inspectorate. It is envisaged that they will cover matters such as cleaning arrangements (including escalators), fire detection and fire fighting arrangements, including automatic sprinkler systems where necessary, staff training on fire matters, arrangements for raising the alarm and advising the public in case of fire, and the internal construction of premises.
I should add that these regulations will apply to all railway operators with Underground stations; and indeed there are lessons in Mr. Fennell's report for all railway undertakings. I know, for example, that British Rail are already taking action in the light of Mr. Fennell's report.
I have sought to give noble Lords some indication of what is being done to follow up the report, but anybody who has read it—and doubtless many noble Lords have done so—will see that follow up is not a simple short-term matter. It will require great commitment from all concerned, over an extended period.
Your Lordships may feel that the general lesson is that it is not enough just to make the right decisions; there has to be vigilance to see that they are carried out. We all have to make sure, as I have suggested already, that management systems work. And there must be clear responsibilities, to avoid uncertainties both within management, and within external enforcement agencies. There can be no room for uncertainty. I am sure that people in many industries, not just railways, will want to "take note" of the Fennell report—in the words of the Motion before us today—and the wide-ranging lessons it has for safety management.
I must not sit down without saying, on behalf I am sure of all noble Lords, how grateful we are to Mr. Fennell and his assessors for the enormous amount of hard work they have put into the report. I must mention too the Health and Safety Executive and its fire research laboratory at Buxton for the detailed and original scientific work which they carried out. Mr. Fennell has conducted a complicated and difficult investigation with tremendous thoroughness, and I am sure all noble Lords will agree that his report is likely to have all the more influence because it is a model of clarity. It is now for others to ensure

775
that it is followed up, and the Government for their part are determined to do all they can to ensure that the sad lessons of King's Cross are learnt and applied. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House takes note of the report of the investigation into the King's Cross Underground fire.—(Lord Brahazon of Tara.)
3.29 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, at the outset I should like to join the Minister in expressing shock and grief that on this very day when we are debating the terrible tragedy at King's Cross, we are met with another tragedy in which the death toll may be even higher than that experienced at King's Cross. Perhaps I may join in his expression of sympathy for the relatives of the bereaved and the suffering of those who are injured, many of whom, we understand, are still waiting to be released.
I am grateful also that, having decided not to take the Statement on King's Cross, we pressed for a debate through the usual channels. The fact that we are having the debate this afternoon is extremely valuable. It will not be a debate in the normal form but it has enabled us to hear from the Minister certain developments which he could not have told us on 10th November when the Statement was made.
I join with the Minister in congratulating and thanking Mr. Desmond Fennell for not only a comprehensive report but a readable report from which one can easily grasp the facts. I also thank the four assessors who obviously did not come into the report except that they were assessors of high standing who must have assisted Mr. Fennell in many aspects of his report.
At the outset, the Minister said that Mr. Fennell made absolutely clear that the purpose of the investigation was to ascertain the causes of the tragedy and to ensure that such a tragedy will never happen again. I learnt on the radio today, as I was travelling in this morning, that the Secretary of State has already determined that there will be a public inquiry into the Clapham Junction disaster. We shall await that inquiry because in all these matters—I agree with the Minister—we are not seeking any political debate or advantage but to ensure that so far as is humanly possible such tragedies do not happen again.
The noble Lord referred to the definitive statement made by Mr. Fennell early in the report, in paragraph 2 of Chapter 1:
"It is clear from the evidence that people continued to smoke in the Underground in spite of a ban in February 1985 following the fire at Oxford Circus station. They did so in particular by lighting up on the escalator as they prepared to leave the station".
In my innocence, I have been heartily satisfied with the way people have generally accepted the no smoking ban on the Underground, and it is a great surprise to me to learn that there is so much disposal of smoking materials as people leave by the escalators.
In fact, the report continues:
"The court was provided with detailed information of 46 escalator fires between 1956 and 1988 and in 32 instances the cause was attributed to smokers' materials".
776
One must ask the obvious question: what happened as a result of the reports on those 32 instances? That does not seem to be covered in Mr. Fennell's report.
Various chapters give detailed and graphic accounts of the night's tragedy, together with illustrations, some of which all noble Lords will agree are somewhat frightening. Chapter 9 gives a timetable and an outline of the events on the night. Chapters 10 and 11 give the responses of the London Underground staff and the emergency services. Like the noble Lord, in addition to extending our sympathy to those who have suffered either by death of relatives or as a result of injuries we pay tribute to the emergency services. From these Benches we echo the tribute which comes out so well in Mr. Fennell's report.
I do not propose to go into the actual details of incidents, but the report reveals shocking shortcomings. In particular, it reveals that there was no system of training staff in fire drill and evacuation. Communications were either poor or not used. The Statement made by the Minister in the other place and printed in the Official Report for this House (col. 735, 10th November 1988), stated:
"The investigation has shown major shortcomings, requiring a new approach to safety management and fire prevention in the Underground and specific safety audits by London Regional Transport".
Paragraph 34, in Chapter 10 of the report, states that it is apparent that the Underground staff that night,
"were woefully ill-equipped to meet the emergency that arose. Those on duty did the best they could using their common sense in the absence of training and supervision".
Those are serious words.
Like the Minister, I too was impressed by the work of the scientific committee as set out in Chapter 12, particularly the experimental work carried out by the Health and Safety Executive at Buxton. It has been questioned what investigations were carried out to ascertain the effect of paintwork in developing the fireball. That is a scientific matter so all I can ask is: have there been investigations on that aspect and, if so, what are the conclusions?
As I have already said, the keynote of this debate must be safety. Paragraph 6 of Chapter 3 states that the only specific reference to safety in either the Secretary of State's objectives for LRT or those set out by LRT for London Underground is,
"to provide consistent with safety, the best value for money rail services within the resources made available, by the pursuit of service quality, unit cost reduction and effective marketing".
The words "within the resources made available" are important and I shall come back to that point before I conclude.
The management of safety is dealt with in Chapter 13. Paragraph 4 makes clear that the responsibility for safety in practice is left with the operating subsidiary. It is argued that that course has been followed ever since the days of the London Transport Executive, some years ago. However, paragraph 5 of that chapter states:
"Dr. Ridley recognised that London Underground at its highest levels may not have given as high a priority to passenger safety in stations as it should have done".

777
That is an honest but extremely serious statement made by the managing director and chairman of London Underground.
Paragraph 6 of the same chapter emphasises that,
"no one person had overall charge of safety"
on London Underground. Paragraph 7 includes the somewhat amazing statement that the more senior managers, including the safety manager, central safety unit, and the personnel director, charged with health and safety responsibilities,
"categorically said that they did not see passenger safety as being part of their job".
That surely will amaze noble Lords, as it did me.
Chapter 4, headed "The Ethos of London Underground", contains two other somewhat surprising statements. Paragraph 3 states:
"the Engineering Director did not concern himself with whether the operating staff were properly trained in fire safety and evacuation procedures because he considered those to be the province of the Operations Directorate".
Then paragraph 5 states:
"the Operations Director … did not concern himself with the state of the escalator machinery and . . . the replacement of wooden components … These were seen as being in the province of the Engineering Directorate".
Therefore, one can see what happens when not one person is in control of such matters as safety arrangements. This chapter seems to argue that London Underground, because of its generally long safety record, had built up an ethos about the operations.
Paragraph 9 states:
"it undoubtedly led to the dangerous, blinkered self-sufficiency which included a general unwillingness to take advice or accept criticism from outside bodies".
That is an attitude that Dr. Ridley said London Underground was struggling to shake off. This section refers to the lack of action on matters raised by the London Fire Brigade and the Health and Safety Executive. So far as I can see, the executive does not say what then happened. If advice was given by the London Fire Brigade and the Health and Safety Executive of which no notice was taken, what did either of those bodies do about it? It seems to me that to give advice of some importance and for it not to be adopted, required some kind of follow up. I may be wrong, but the report does not deal with it.
Chapter 19:13 refers to a statement made by Dr. Ridley, who, as I have said, was chairman and managing director of London Underground, that he considered the three principal dangers to passengers were congestion, crime and fire. The report continues:
"With the benefit of hindsight I believe we have given higher priority to safety problems arising from congestion and crime than to fire, and this was based on our experience of risk".
He is really saying that because over the years there has not been a serious tragedy, and with this kind of self-satisfaction and sufficiency about the structure, this aspect has been given less importance than others. This attitude is reflected in Chapter 14 as regards the auditing of safety. I am delighted to receive from the Minister today confirmation that the LRT is now to have an auditing body that will report monthly to the board on safety issues throughout
778
LRT and all its subsidiaries. I am certain that noble Lords everywhere will welcome that decision.
That matter is also mentioned in the document The Future of the Underground—the Plan for Action that was issued in September 1988 when Dr. Ridley was still in charge. In this document it is made quite clear that automatic sprinklers are to be fitted under all wooden escalators by 1990. Can the Minister say when that will take place in 1990? Shall we have to wait 15 or 18 months, or will that job be proceeded with very quickly?
The report further states that all wooden panels on escalators are to be removed by 1989. Again, when in 1989 can one expect that to be done? It is said that 23 stations are to have public emergency points by 1990. The question is: how late or soon in 1990? Special cabling is to be installed so that radio for police, the fire brigade, etc. can be used on deep level platforms. No indication is given as to the date by which that is intended to be completed.
I recognise that all these jobs to which I have referred must not interfere with rail travel. That must still proceed. I am certain there are ways in which the jobs can be done without interfering with daytime travel, bearing in mind the essential part that London Underground plays for the travelling public in London.
The Minister referred to finance. I hope that in all the measures to which I have referred money will not stand in the way, not only of the jobs being done but of their being done as soon as possible. I believe that the House must insist that we have that kind of assurance. In Chapter 19 Mr. Fennell affirms that in his judgment
"there is no evidence that the overall level of subsidy . . . was inadequate to finance necessary safety-related spending".
I bow to Mr. Fennell's knowledge, expertise and the way in which he conducted the inquiry. However, that is one man's opinion. What is the view of senior managers? Are they satisfied that finance played no part at all in inadequate safety arrangements? Also, what is the view of the Department of Transport? Is it satisfied that the expenditure of extra money may not have ensured a far better safety system and supervision than that which Mr. Fennell criticises in the report?
Mr. Fennell argues that it is not a question of the adequacy of staff for safety affecting the King's Cross tragedy. He regards it as more important that there should be a proper level of safety at each station. I believe that we would all agree with that view. Again, that requires expenditure. One cannot have adequate safety at each station without staff, plus training and supervision: three things that are so important in this matter.
I am sorry that I am taking so long but we asked for this debate and there are points that I wish to make. Chapter 18 deals with the role of the railway inspectorate. Paragraph 4 states that there is a misunderstanding of its responsibilities for the safety of passengers in the Underground. I am concerned that in paragraph 5 we find that,
"the proportion of time devoted by railway employment inspectors to London Underground varied from as little as three-quarters of one inspector's time in the early 1980s to only one-quarter of one inspector's time in 1987."

779
I am delighted to learn from the Minister that the recommendation in paragraph 15 that the Railway Inspectorate be brought up to date is to be carried out.
There was a report in the Guardian as recently as 22nd November on this matter which drew attention to the danger that can arise unless the Government increase the Railway Inspectorate. I am also amazed at what the report states as regards what seems to be the lack of action by or co-operation with the Health and Safety Executive. Paragraph 25 expresses the hope that there will be closer co-operation between management and staff, and it refers to the constructive suggestions made at the inquiry by the National Union of Railwaymen and other trade unions. Paragraph 27 expresses particular concern at the lack of a comprehensive system of safety respresentatives and safety committees. Arising from the evidence, Mr. Fennell makes the amazing statement that until the end of 1987 there had been no health and safety representative at King's Cross Station for 2½ years.
I am delighted that the Statement made in the House affirmed that the chief inspecting officer of railways is now to organise a special investigation of London Underground with the full support of the Health and Safety Executive. I believe that the Minister referred to that fact in his opening remarks. I was very pleased to note the Minister's statement as regards fire certification. I had read the opinion of counsel set out in Appendix N. All that it meant to me as a layman, and I believe that my noble and learned friend will agree, was that there existed a problem which had to be dealt with. I am very pleased that the Government are going to tackle it and are to ensure that there will be fire certification; also that regulations will be issued under the 1971 Act ensuring that there are specific fire precautions at all London Underground stations. I believe we shall all welcome that provision.
In conclusion I am impressed with what I regard as the two most important recommendations. Recommendation (156) states that
"London Underground and London Regional Transport shall make regular reports to the Secretary of State for Transport upon their progress with the implementation of those recommendations directed at them."
I am not certain whether the Minister said that that recommendation is accepted by the Government.
Recommendation (157) states that:
"Reports on the progress made by London Underground shall also be included in the annual reports of London Regional Transport, the London Regional Passengers' Committee and the Railway Inspectorate".
If those recommendations and the others are carried out, Mr. Fennell's report and the action taken on it will have been thoroughly justified. Of the 157 recommendations, 33 were described as "most important" and 59 as "important". Will the Minister indicate whether all those 92 recommendations have been carried out?
3.50 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, we too are grateful that the Government have found time for this debate.
780
There was discussion through the usual channels when the statement relating to the report was issued, and we wisely agreed that it would be better to take a little more time and debate it properly. That is what we are doing this afternoon. It is sadly ironic that today there is a Statement in another place on the awful tragedy at Clapham Junction. It may be that we shall be saying the same things about that in a year's time as we were saying in November last year. I echo everything that has been said already. We are deeply sad to hear of so many dead and injured. Our sympathy goes out to all those who are bereaved and to those who are injured and may never recover from those injuries. We are glad that the Government have made it clear that there will be a public inquiry into the accident. I hope that the inquiry will get to the bottom of things as well as the Fennell inquiry has done in relation to the King's Cross tragedy.
We are all extremely grateful to Mr. Desmond Fennell for what is a spectacularly good report. It is perhaps one of the best reports I have ever read, both in its clarity and in the way in which it exposes layer after layer of the problems which led to the tragedy at King's Cross. One is grateful not only to him and to his assessors but also to those who appeared as witnesses, many of them having to relive in front of Mr. Fennell the agonies of that night. That cannot have been easy and we must be extremely grateful to them. I echo our grateful thanks to the scientists who carried out all the work on what was essentially a new phenomenon. I refer to the fireball effect when the flashover came from the top of the escalator into the ticket hall. That was a nice piece of work in the true sense of that word and made a great contribution to understanding what had happened on that night and one hopes to what must be done to stop such things happening again.
One has enormous feelings of sadness when reading the report for the waste of innocent life and for the physical and mental agony of those who were bereaved and those who are still injured. One has tremendous admiration for the heroism that took place that night and for the genuine self-sacrifice of those who gave up their own lives for the benefit of others. One also cannot help feeling a sense of anger at the incompetence and complacency which the report reveals.
I should like to say a few words about risk. It is easy to ask that everything should be made absolutely safe. We all know that nothing in life is absolutely safe. Being born is the most dangerous thing that we ever do, because there is only one way out of that. However, risk has to be managed, and there has to be an acceptable level of risk. It seems that the tragedy at King's Cross fell short of the high standard that we ought to expect on our public transport systems.
It is easy to be critical with hindsight and it is difficult not to view the whole tragedy with the benefit of hindsight. However, it is fair to ask what safety the travelling public have the right to expect and whether the position on London Underground before this event reached that standard. How much priority was given to safety by the management of London Underground? One is not looking for scapegoats. Two people have already lost their jobs as a result of the tragedy. One is not looking for more scapegoats,

781
but it is absolutely crucial to prevent the recurrence of such an event. To do that we must establish who should have been responsible and what their future responsibilities should be. What was the attitude of London Regional Transport and of London Underground? Was it adequate? The report says that it was not adequate.
Who then was responsible? One person was directly responsible. That was the person who struck a match on the escalator at about 7.25 on that night and. dropped it onto the 48th tread or thereabouts. That was the direct cause. In a sense I hope that that person never realises that it was his or her responsibility because the guilt associated with it would be almost too great for anyone to bear. Let us also hope that anyone tempted to do that will recognise the awful effect of that simple act of striking a match to light a cigarette and dropping the match onto an escalator.
Who was responsible for the consequences of that dropped match? In my view, safety in any organisation, industrial company or public institution starts at the very top. Unless the senior members of a company or organisation make safety a major priority things will go wrong. It must be a regular concern and an item for every board meeting. I speak as a non-executive director of a small chemical company. I see it as my role to ensure—I have the co-operation of my colleagues on this issue— that health and safety are always high on the agenda of any board meeting. In the case of London Underground I fear that that was not the case. A degree of sloppiness had crept in, and there is no doubt that the management come out of the report very badly because of that.
Should the management have been more aware? Of course they should have been, but it might be argued that the flashover which caused the devastation was a new phenomenon; and indeed it was. But it is not just the precise mechanism that is important. That does not absolve them from blame. They simply did not take adequate precautions on behalf of the passengers who were their responsibility. As we see from the report, there is a long history of fires on London Underground, dating back to 1939, when the escalators were first installed. Since then there has been a steady stream of fires on London Underground escalators. In December 1944 there was a particularly severe fire at Paddington on the Bakerloo line. The escalators were gutted. The report explains that a review stated that there had been 77 fires between 1939 and 1944. Therefore this is not a new phenomenon.
It was reported then that these escalators were especially prone to fire and that the fires, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, were mainly attributed to the ignition of smokers' materials. Appendix J to the report tells us that there were 46 fires between 1956 and 1967. It deals specifically with the serious fire at Oxford Circus in November 1984 which led to the setting up of a fire safety task force. In the light of that history the management of London Underground should not have been unaware of the dangers.
782
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said in quoting from the report, it was quite clear that nobody took responsibility. The engineering director, Mr. Lawrence, said that it was not his responsibility; Mr. Clarke, the operations director, did not feel that it was his responsibility; and the safety and personnel manager—oddly enough, if he was the safety manager —did not think that it was his responsibility. There was a level of ignorance and complacency on matters of safety at the most senior level within London Underground. As a result of senior management not being seen to care, the standard of housekeeping down the line was deplorable. The report also states that:
"The lift and maintenance manager said that to the best of his knowledge the running tracks of the Piccadilly Line escalators at King's Cross had never been cleaned completely".
So the scene was set for a tragedy.
Of course if the staff had been properly trained, the tragedy might well have been limited; but they clearly had not been trained to deal with emergencies. If there had been any proper liaison with the London Fire Brigade, the tragedy might have been limited. If the staff had known where the equipment was, and how to use it, the tragedy might have been limited. If there had been any fire practices at any time, then some of those weaknesses might have been found. It might have occurred to someone that in an emergency the relief inspector—whose home station was at Harrow-on-the-Hill—who was in charge of the station that night and who did not know his way around King's Cross, could hardly be expected to deal with that sort of an emergency if he had not been properly trained to do so. There were no tire practices and there was no staff training. Chapter 15, as has been said, is a devastating indictment of the lack of staff training in safety.
In Chapter 15 at paragraph 14 one reads that:
"The Court heard evidence that the staff on duty at King's Cross on the evening of 18th November 1987 were not adequately trained … Only four out of 21 staff on duty said that they had had any training in evacuation or fire drills".
Therefore it is no wonder that we read Mr. Fennell's statement in paragraph 5 that:
"'The single most important need is for better training of staff".
That is an amazing situation in the light of the evidence given by Dr. Ridley who said, in reference to what London Underground persisted in calling "smoulderings", that they were part of the system and had to be expected. If London Underground really knew that, one has the right to ask why it did not take steps to train the staff to deal with the problem.
One is not surprised when one sees, again in a statement from Dr. Ridley at page 127, that there was a tendency to have "management by memo". One gets a clear feeling that the senior management of London Underground sat in 55 Broadway, communicated with people by means of pieces of paper and did not really understand, or know, what was going on down the line. Memos from junior staff were ignored, and warnings from outside bodies were discounted. We read that the chief fire officer found the same problems of poor housekeeping and electrical wiring in escalator machine rooms year after year. Recommendations from internal inquiries

783
into accidents either did not reach the right people or were not acted upon.
Indeed the director general of RoSPA makes it quite clear that the management had learnt nothing
"from the evidence of their own inspections or from …outside bodies".
Clearly the management carries a terrible responsibility. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, will comment later upon Appendix M.
Just as an aside, one of the most irritating matters to arise out of the report is the way in which the management of London Transport tried to shrug off responsibility onto a small paint firm by the name of Prodorite. I am very glad that Mr. Fennell saw it as his duty to conduct a separate investigation into the effect of the paint on the escalator. He produced an interim report which absolved the paint company from responsibility. I think that it was a despicable act by London Transport to try to shift the blame in such a way. Whoever started that really ought to be disciplined, even now.
The Government, through the Minister today, have accepted that they have some responsibility for the situation. I think that that fact is to be applauded. They have allowed two senior executives to go. I am sure that the Secretary of State has considered his position and I have no doubt that in pre-war, and immediately post-war days, he would have come to different conclusions about whether he should continue in office. However, I do not press that point.
Nevertheless one wonders why the Government did not follow up the results of inquiries into previous fires. Surely the Department of Transport must have known about them. If it did not, one wonders why it did not; and if it did, one wonders why it did not follow them up. Or, did it leave it all to that quarter of a man from the Railway Inspectorate?
I am glad to hear from the noble Lord that the Railway Inspectorate will be brought up to establishment. But can we have an assurance that when the interviews are over in January the Railway Inspectorate will actually be up to establishment by the end of that month and that perhaps a greater share of its establishment will go to the London Underground until it is convinced that matters have been put to rights?
Appendix N was to be dealt with by my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich, but unfortunately he has been detained in one of your Lordships' Select Committees and therefore will not be able to wind up from these Benches today. That chapter raises the most amazing neo-theological disputes about the applicability of health and safety legislation and fire certification. Again, I am glad to hear from the Minister that the Government will clarify that point.
Not only is the Railway Inspectorate understaffed, but I understand that "L" division of the British Transport Police is also understaffed by at least 10 per cent. One would like to have some indication from the Government that they are also prepared to see that situation put right.
784
My noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich tells me that he saw Dr. Ridley before he left London Underground and gained the impression from him that he was really only interested in getting the British Transport Police up to strength provided that the Home Office was prepared to pay for it. I should have thought that that was rather a dangerous attitude to take.
What about the question of government financing? The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has quoted Mr. Fennell in Chapter 19 where he says, that there was:
"no evidence that the overall level of subsidy … was inadequate to finance … and maintain safety standards".
That is a very clear statement and I accept his judgment in that specific area. However, it seems to me that at no stage was it made clear to middle management of London Underground that safety was a great priority. It was within the context of a financial climate in which people expected any proposals they made to be turned down. They may have been wrong in that; I do not know. But there is no doubt that many projects were not put forward because people believed that the Government were trying to reduce the subsidy on London Underground and that money would not be available. Accordingly, at page 149 in paragraph 3(i) the lift and escalator manager is reported as not pressing for money to relocate the water fog controls or replace the wooden parts of the escalators with metal ones. In addition we are told of there being:
"evidence that . . . the budget for escalator cleaning had been reduced".
Therefore is it not obvious that the statements and attitude of the Government to public sector spending had created a climate of opinion in which middle management and supervisory staff believed that they could not get the money they needed? Add to that the evidence of Dr. Ridley that the:
"criteria for evaluating investment proposals may have discriminated against investment in stations",
and again we can see how the financial impact was felt. The money was there to improve safety, but Government pressure to reduce spending may well have caused an atmosphere in which the money was not spent. So the safety of passengers was really no one's concern and 30 or 32—we do not know exactly how manypeople died.
Let us then turn to the future, because that is most important. One is considerably reassured by what the Minister has said today. I do not want in any way to underemphasise what he said. Work is clearly being done and that is to be welcomed. But what confidence can one really have? There have been so many cases in the past where recommendations have been made and the management is largely unchanged. It is necessary to recognise the fact that the public needs reassuring. It needs reassurance that there will be trained, efficient staff available and on view.
I do not want to go into the whole question of other safety matters on the railway, but in the past few days we have had two cases of people being attacked. Someone was murdered at Waterloo. There is a general air of unease about the fact that there are not enough trained staff to look after people's welfare on the Underground. The Government must address

785
themselves to the matter. It must be made clear that the London Underground management must treat safety as a high priority.
I shall say a word on ticketing machines. I have no doubt that ticketing machines, and the technology allied to them, will in the end save money; but I am not sure that they will increase safety. I understand from a contact that although it is alleged to take only two seconds from pressing a plunger for all the ticketing machine gates to spring open, in practice it takes rather longer. It may take only eight or 10 seconds, but that is after someone has found the plunger. The plunger is understandably behind a locked door. One does not want members of the public pressing the plungers at random. What assurances can we have that the people who are supposed to press the plunger know any more about its operation than the people who were supposed to turn on the water cocks to set the fogging machine working? We need reassurance on those points.
Finally, the Government would be wise to introduce some type of management consultancy to look at London Underground's whole management structure. It has become an ingrown organisation. Promotion is by seniority and not necessarily by ability. It is, as one sees in the report, very much a "Buggin's turn" organisation. That is the type of factor which in the long term, in a situation where competition is necessarily limited because it is difficult to have two competing Underground systems—although the Underground is of course competing with other forms of transport—leads to complacency. I should welcome it if the Government were to bring in a collection of competent outside management consultants to go through the whole organisation from top to bottom and to report fearlessly, without regard to the feelings of management or trade unions, because this was a tragedy of such enormous consequence that nothing less than absolute certainty in the minds of the public that things have changed will satisfy them. On the evidence that we have seen, this is no way to run a railway.
4.12 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, it is right that the House should be debating this report, but it is sad that we are doing so in the shadow of another tragic major accident to travellers involving the loss of life and terrible injuries. I should like to repeat what other noble Lords have said and say how grateful we are to Mr. Fennell for such an excellent, detailed report and carefully considered conclusion. We should also congratulate Her Majesty's Government on the rapidity with which they commissioned the report and the speed with which it has been published.
It is important to be clear about objectives. In Chapter 2, paragraph 14, Mr. Fennell states:
"This Investigation had only one goal: to ascertain the cause of the tragedy and to try and ensure that it will never happen again".
Those are well chosen words. As other noble Lords have said, risk cannot be completely eliminated from our lives; but we have to seek to reduce it to the minimum that is practical and it is clear from the
786
report that the management concerned did not do that.
I do not believe that we need spend any time debating physical causes—the start and spread of the fire. That was well documented and carefully explained in the report. The report had the benefit of expert opinion and it came to clear, well supported conclusions. Better to spend time on the effectiveness of the emergency services dealing with the disaster. The noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Tordoff, have already dealt with that. I wish to concentrate mainly on the organisation and management factors which created such a hazardous situation so as to make a contribution to preventing such a thing happening again.
There is no doubt that the biggest factor was the attitude of mind and climate of opinion on safety matters. At the top, London Regional Transport, we are told, strictly monitored financial matters but not safety (page 17, paragraph 11). At the next level, London Underground management took the view that some fires were inevitable. No one person was responsible for the overall safety of the travelling public. There were too many authorities involved. Responsibility and authority were fragmented. That is a situation which is never effective.
Specialist safety staff were mainly in junior positions. We are told that they were concerned solely with the safety of staff, not that of the travelling public. It is surprising that the railway inspectorate did not detect and report upon those shortcomings, as Chapter 18 makes clear. All the emphasis was on staff safety and not on passenger safety. As Mr. Fennell said, that was a misunderstanding of responsibility.
It is a well established principle, and a wise one, in manufacturing industry that one cannot inspect quality into a product. The same goes for safety. It is mainly a matter of ethos and example. In banking too, one cannot inspect honesty into transactions; but inspection systems and trained inspectors are a backstop. They can detect and forewarn of softness in regulations and in their application. They can detect bad practices and avoidable risks before they create disaster. They can do that only if they are independent of line management and if inspectors have the full confidence and support of the top management to whom they must report. That top management must accept the ultimate responsibility and concern for safety, especially where human life is a stake.
Chapter 18, paragraph 10, makes it clear how unsatisfactory the situation was. The Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways is reported on page 147 as having stated that:
"The amount of information on safety measures which a railway is legally required to give to the Inspectorate is extremely limited, and it is mainly by a system of liaison and relatively informal exchanges with the operators that the Inspectorate is able to exert a positive influence on the development of railway safety".
I have some experience as a non-executive director on the board of British Rail. My experience there bears out that point. The difference in British Rail was that the Chief Inspector of Railways made an annual report to the board which was discussed by the board. Any difficulties, problems or matters that

787
were unsatisfactory were referred to a sub-committee of the board for action upon which we subsequently had a report.
There was pressure at that time on money for investment. I was critical of the Department of Transport's policy in that respect, but I never had reason, and I do not think that any of my colleagues did, to be concerned that safety was jeopardised by pressure on finances. Safety was always treated as a top priority. That was the climate, the ethos, of British Rail. I believe that it extends right down the system. I am confident that that will prove the case when today's tragic accident is investigated.
It was apparently not so on London Underground. Chapter 19, paragraph 3(i), comments that the lift and escalator manager made some extraordinary remarks. These have already been quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, so I shall not repeat them, but they were to the effect that he did not put forward proposals on investment in improved safety measures because he thought that they had no chance of being accepted. Although that is only a perception by a manager of the reaction at higher level, it has a nasty similarity to the reaction of senior directors and managers who were responsible for the ro-ro ship "Herald of Free Enterprise" to the proposals by operating staff for investment to improve safety. I do not believe that there is any suggestion—and Mr. Fennell confirms this—that the overall shortage of money was a cause of this accident in any way. But there was certainly an error of management in the allocation of priorities and how the available money should be used. I think I have said enough— perhaps too much—to make the point about the fatal flaws in the attitude to safety.
I wish to ask a question before turning to actions to prevent (so far as we possibly can) a recurrence of any such disaster. I should like to ask my noble friend who is to reply: what was the position of the Department of Transport in all this? How did it view its responsibility for safety? Who was responsible, who is responsible in the Department of Transport for the safety of the travelling public? Is it an official or a Minister? At what level of officialdom is there someone who is solely responsible for the safety of the travelling public, and to whom does he report? Does the Department of Transport accept that it must be satisfied that transport organisations of any kind which carry the public, whether in the public or the private sector, have adequate systems for monitoring and maintaining safety standards on behalf of the travelling public? Does the Department of Transport accept that responsibility?
During my time on the board of British Rail there was intense monitoring of financial affairs by the Department of Transport, as I said. There was endless second guessing of investment proposals, but never to my recollection were any queries on safety from the Department of Transport put to the board. Perhaps that was because the department was perfectly satisfied with what British Rail did and its organisation.
I ask my noble friend who is to reply whether the Department of Transport was satisfied with the
788
arrangements of London Underground and London Regional Transport for safety. Did it know about the arrangements? If it did, was it satisfied? If it was not, why was no action taken?
I must turn now to the action for the future, in the words of the report:
"to try to ensure that it will never happen again".
I would add to that any disaster, not just this type of disaster, where the travelling public might be involved. The recommendations are clearly set out in Chapter 20 and I shall not repeat them or refer to them, except for Recommendations (78) and (79). Those recommendations were referred to by my noble friend Lord Brabazon. It is good to know that action has already been taken, is being taken and will be taken by Her Majesty's Government to press on with implementing those recommendations and that the money will be available in full to enable them to be carried through. Can my noble friend also assure us that their progress will be monitored by the Department of Transport and that adequate powers exist to insist that necessary action is taken on those recommendations, if that does not seem to be happening?
Of all the recommendations, perhaps the most fundamental are Recommendations (78) and (79), on page 170 of the report. They are:
"(78) A non-executive director with special responsibility for safety shall be appointed to the Board of London Underground. He shall have direct access to the Chairman of London Regional Transport.
(79) London Regional Transport shall establish a system whereby the safety of operation of London Underground can be the subject of audit. The Board of London Regional Transport shall receive reports on such audit".
I very much welcome the assurances regarding audits given by my noble friend Lord Brabazon. It is relevant that financial audits of public limited companies are made public by statute. Why should not the safety audit of public transport organisations also be made public? They should be made public, I believe, with a report on the action taken or reasons for not taking the action recommended in the safety audit. Those reasons should also he made public, in my view. That would be a good principle in all such organisations where large numbers of the public are transported by sea, land or air.
I wish to ask my noble friend whether he will give an assurance that something along these lines will be done. There is too much secrecy and special pleading at present. Examples of avoidable risks arise all too often. Here we have had one in the Underground, and not long ago there was one at sea with a ro-ro ferry. Hardly a month goes by without reports of inadequacy of air traffic control facilities, only made public when incidents occur.
Just as it is the task of inspectors and non-executive directors in public limited companies to alert managers to the need to maintain standards, whether in quality, safety, or in other ways, and to insist on action being taken in the interests of customers— using that word in its widest sense—so I believe it is Parliament's task, especially in your Lordships' House where we can speak without fear or favour, and our duty to monitor the executive arm of government and to ensure so far as we can that in carrying out their very onerous duties the

789
Government should maintain the optimum balance on priorities. For instance, it was wrong, as presumably was known, to allow the Railway Inspectorate to fall below full strength. But it is good to know that action is now being taken to put that right. Will the situation he fully monitored by the Department of Transport in future?
Nowhere is this balance of priorities more important than where the safety of people is involved, where wrong priorities or negligence may result in avoidable death or grievous injury. That is why I believe that this debate is of real importance, not only in relation to this disaster —that is history, tragic though it be—but also as a reminder that the price of safety, as with freedom, is constant vigilance.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Fairfax of Cameron: My Lords, I too see the horrible irony that this debate should take place on a day when we have another disaster in the shape of the Clapham rail crash. I add my voice to those of speakers who feel the poignancy of that irony.
Mr. Fennell's report was concerned with the King's Cross fire disaster and with the considerations of safety that arose out of that disaster. I wish to make some comments of a wider nature on the present state of affairs in the Underground system, as highlighted by Mr. Fennell's excellent report. As the noble Viscount who spoke previously said, it often seems as if there is a disaster waiting to happen, particularly concerning some of our transport industries. I am afraid that, arising out of the disaster, I see this as a situation waiting to happen.
I speak as someone with a personal interest. Like other noble Lords, I use the Underground from time to time. From what I see and from my personal experience, the fact that a disaster has not happened earlier or in a different form does not surprise me at all. In my view, the Underground system remains horribly and worryingly defective. I hope that some good will come out of this tragedy and that Mr. Fennell's report will be a catalyst for radical improvement on the Underground and its systems.
As I have said, I declare an interest as an intermittent but fairly regular user of the Underground, and in particular of the Northern line, which is the most infamous line of all. Therefore I speak with considerable feeling, borne out by practical experience. The conditions on the Northern line are no doubt applicable on the Underground system generally. They are not acceptable.
Other noble Lords have spoken about congestion. In my view the Underground system is grossly overcrowded, a factor which brings with it a very serious safety and fire risk. I dread to think what would have happened if there had been a fire on some of the trains that I have travelled on during the rush hour. I speak as someone who does not use the Underground every day but the conditions, frankly, would almost be unacceptable to animals. Equipment, particularly escalators and lifts, are frequently defective. Only the other day, three escalators and one lift were all out of order on the same journey and I was not allowed to use any of them.
790
There is an even more serious and worrying aspect for passengers who experience this type of environment daily, and that is the almost total lack of adequate information provided to passengers. There is nothing more distrubing than to be in a worrying situation, for example where there are too many people about or a train stops in a tunnel, and no information whatsoever is provided by the London Transport staff. Reference has been made to lack of systems. This is not the fault of the individual staff but it demonstrates defective mnagement systems. I hope that that situation will be rectified.
Trains and stations are hot, overcrowded and filthy. Reference has been made to crime. The Underground, in my view, is a mugger's paradise. There were two stabbings on the Underground this last week-end. I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong but I see reference in the paper today that there are approximately 320 London Transport police on duty, an average of one per station. In these circumstances it is not surprising that the American vigilante group the Guardian Angels, find a fertile market here for their services.
The considerations that I have referred to concern safety in its widest sense and portray an unacceptable state of affairs. I refuse to believe that congestion and the resulting overcrowding are conditions that are consistent with adequate safety standards on the Underground. If the Underground was in the private sector, these conditions would be a recipe for immediate bankruptcy. No one, had they the choice, would use the London Underground system in its present condition. It has a monopoly. It is in the public sector and therefore the Government have an obligation to improve its condition.
I travel on business to the Soviet Union and have done so for some time. As a general comment, our system, state of affairs and attitude to the users of the system is the sort of system that used to prevail—and I emphasise "used to prevail"—in the Soviet Union. It is a system that shows no, or very little, regard for the users of the system itself. It is the opposite of the consumer economy in the United States where every company puts the customer first. For whatever reasons, I fear that the London Underground puts the customer last. I hope that this situation will be remedied. In my view the present state of affairs is nothing short of a disgrace.
Having been very negative, I should like to isolate some of the areas in which I should like to see some improvement. First, may we please have improved reliability of equipment and of the trains themselves? Secondly, may we have improved security for prevention of crime? I told my secretary this morning that I was going to speak in this debate and asked her what she thought about the London Underground. Her first comments concerned crime. She said that no woman would think of going in the Tube after 10 o'clock in the evening. Is that an acceptable state of affairs? In my view it is not.
Improved information systems is an important area. I have already referred to improved supervision, and this goes to effective management training systems.

791
Finally, may we have an improved environment in the Underground? I say that because I would hate the Undeground authorities to divert too much of their budget to the sort of cosmetic improvements which some people find infuriating and laughable. I am referring particularly to the recent painting of the trains on Network SouthEast. (I am now referring to British Rail and not the Underground.) This was a huge PR exercise to change the name. Heaven knows how much it cost to paint all those trains! People who travel in trains do not look at the outside. Let us spend this money efficiently.
I conclude from my own personal experience that the state of the London Underground is nothing short of deplorable, at a time when the overground transport system in London is fit to bust. That this is so is accepted. Occasionally the system overground almost reaches gridlock. Therefore the Government should be doing what they can to improve the Underground, to make it a more attractive service to those who can opt whether to use it or not, thus relieving the conditions overground.
I trust that it is not too hysterical a remark to say that I hope that those who died or were injured in the London Underground King's Cross disaster did not suffer in vain. Unfortunately, as I have said, it often seems that it requires a disaster to focus the spotlight on an unacceptable state of affairs, which is then hopefully remedied. I am encouraged by what I have heard from the Front Bench on my side of the House. I hope that the Government will take steps not only to implement the recommendations in Mr. Fennell's excellent report, but also to look at some of the wider considerations which I have tried to highlight, so that the underground may in future become a safer and more acceptable environment for the travelling public.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Jay: My Lords, what the Minister said today did only a little to modify my belief, in the light of the Fennell Report and of one's own experience in the Underground since the Govrenment took it over from the GLC three years ago, that the financial targets set by the Government have led to an obsession with cost cutting and cutting staff, resulting in disregard of safety and the final disaster in recent months.
The Minister said nothing about the Government's financial targets or about staff levels on London Transport. As soon as the Government took control of London Underground after 1984, a programme was imposed progressively to cut the financial subsidy towards zero, at a time when other Underground systems such as that in Paris receive subsidies of many hundreds of millions of pounds a year. After the enterprise was taken over the then Secretary of State, Mr. Ridley, wrote a letter of guidance to London Underground calling upon it to reduce costs and laying down efficiency and economy as its aims. There was no mention of safety in the Government's formal statement of aims for London Regional Transport and none in LRT's annual reports since then, except in the special case of crime.
792
The managers evidently accepted that as a mandate to cut costs without too much regard to the service to customers or anything else. Indeed, in its Annual Business Plan 1988–89 London Regional Transport state:
"The objectives for London Transport set in 1984 have been more than achieved, with revenue grant needs being about half the target level set by the Secretary of State in 1984, and real unit costs falling faster than target".
The fall in real unit costs, in plainer English, meant a huge cut in staff—which no speaker has so far mentioned today—from 56,000 in December 1984 to 41,170 in 1988. Of course a cut in staff of nearly 30 per cent. in three or four years when the number of passengers was growing extremely rapidly seriously damaged the service. A lack of maintenance and other staff caused the delays, train cancellations and congestion which we have all suffered, and finally created a situation in which the worst accident was almost bound to occur.
As has been said today, the Fennell Report makes quite clear that the fire started in a mass of rubbish which had accumulated under the escalator. The report states that the
"lift and escalator engineer said that he did not succeed in monitoring escalator cleaning standards to his satisfaction or have enough staff to do so".
The escalator manager also said:
"The effect of the organisational changes had been to delay improvements in the arrangements for escalator cleaning …The running tracks of the Piccadilly Line escalators at King's Cross had never been cleaned completely".
The lift and escalator department's budget was cut from £11 million to £6 million in three years and staffing for escalator maintenance was reduced from 350 to 250. The cuts included 50 machine room attendants whose job was cleaning and maintenance of escalators.
As a result of staff shortage, no member of London Underground staff was in the control room when the fire started; only two Underground employees were on barrier duty; and no single drop of water was applied to the fire until the fire brigade arrived, because there was no one there who knew how to do it. It was the police and not London Underground staff who summoned the fire brigade. Mr. Fennell's words have already been quoted: those few who were on duty were woefully ill-equipped to meet the emergency that arose.
In addition, the Railway Safety Inspectorate itself was short of staff. Mr. Fennell emphatically recommended that that should be remedied. The inspectorate's chief officer in his own report said that his organisation was undermanned by more than a third last year and that certain aspects of its work had to be curtailed because of the staff shortage. I do not think that the Minister gave an entirely fair picture in not mentioning the staff shortage.
Such is the plight to which a once highly efficient enterprise—as most of us believe London Underground was in the past—is reduced if it is treated as though it were no more than a grocer's shop and instructed to cut costs without regard to the interests or even the safety of the public.
There were of course other reasons for the disaster besides cost cutting. But Mr. Fennell himself makes

793
his considered view clear that the priority given to economy over safety was a major contributory cause. He said that it was apparent from the evidence given by the chairman that whereas financial matters—namely, productivity and budgeting—were strictly monitored, safety was not strictly monitored. He added:
"There was a feeling among London Underground managers that the financial climate would rule out proposals to increase spending in certain areas".
He also said:
"If the financial state of a company can be gauged by a financial audit then the safety of it can be established by a safety audit".
There at least it seems we are at last to have some progress.
On the main issue of responsibility for the disaster, I think that the Financial Times was right, if restrained, in its judgment that,
"An emphasis on cost cutting and low overall investment may have helped create a climate in which corners were cut".
I agree with other noble Lords that what matters now is what is done in the future. Are the cost cutting and destaffing (London Transport's own phrase) policies enjoined on London Regional Transport to stop or be moderated? The Minister did not say that they were. If they do not stop, I believe that the public will go on suffering and further disasters may occur.
As we have heard, in his excellent report Mr. Fennell makes 157 recommendations to avert such a disaster in the future, including that concerning the Railway Inspectorate. But will money and manpower be provided to implement them? The Minister did not convince me that it would. If so, new financial targets must be set for the organisation. Otherwise, where is the money to come from, and at the expense of what else? The policy of destaffing has to be reversed if it is seriously intended that those recommendations are to be applied.
London Regional Transport itself claims that some at least of the recommendations are now being carried out. It will take a lot to convince people, if there are no financial targets and no reversal of the cuts in staff, that they are really to be effective. If there are not financial adjustments the Government will bear a very heavy responsibility for any further accident that occurs. The only improvement that is visible to the ordinary traveller on the Underground at the moment is the installation of ticket machines and ticket barriers which to the layman appear to be designed more to save staff and to make escape in case of fire more difficult rather than less. Are the Government convinced that those barriers will not make escape more difficult? How can we be certain that the one individual required will be present in the case of an emergency? I cannot imagine what the situation will be for less athletic travellers if he is not.
Mr. Fennell rightly concludes that the few humble staff available at King's Cross that night were in no way to blame. I also wonder whether it is fair for Ministers by implication to load all the blame on the two chairmen of the organisation. From the evidence it looks very much as though the management thought that they were only obeying orders in putting economy above everything else. Perhaps the Secretary of State himself thought that he was just
794
obeying orders. The whole story bears all the marks of the narrow dogmatism of the present Government, and indeed the present Prime Minister, about cost cutting and obsession with the profit and loss account as the measure and master of all human activities.
London Underground is not the only public service now being damaged by false economies and undermanning. Unless, therefore, the Government ensure, rather than merely predicting, that Mr. Fennell's recommendations are carried out in the spirit in which he made them and that the money and manpower required are made available, it is the Government who will be blamed next time something like this happens.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I should first like to apologise to my noble friend the Minister. Owing to a longstanding previous engagement I may not be present to hear him wind up the debate. I am grateful to him for having introduced this matter in such a clear way. I should also like to thank Mr. Desmond Fennell, Q.C., and the other assessors, for their excellent report. Perhaps I too may join in the tributes paid to the different services.
As the noble Lords will have seen in the report, the director general of RoSPA, Mr. Warburton, was a key witness at the inquiry. He spent many days there, read all the reports and documents that were submitted to the inquiry and gave lengthy evidence under cross-examination by counsel, the court and LRT. Had it not been for the hares that were introduced, the report could have been out earlier and would have cost somewhat less. To test paint for flammability takes time and costs a lot of money; likewise, so does trying to find a flasher or a man in blue overalls.
I shall resist the temptation to talk about the new ticket barriers. I believe that they are not safe. However, as they and other matters are being closely examined, we must wait for the report before commenting further. I find it quite amazing that, although Sir Keith Bright and his board had proper regard to efficiency and economy on the one hand, they did not on the other hand consider safety of operation in the same light. Yet, as has already been said, the corporate aims of London Underground are laid down in the standing orders and directives issued by LRT. The first aim is:
"to provide, consistent with safety, the best value for money rail services within the resources made available".
It is quite evident that no lessons were learnt from all the other smaller fires that occurred before the King's Cross disaster. As the director general puts it, at paragraph 19, page 120 of the report:
"he had looked in vain for evidence of someone within the organisation questioning what the worst possible consequences of fire could be. Nobody had asked, 'what if …?'".
All the reports from internal inquiries and fire hazard surveys had not been collected and analysed to permit a true assessment to be made of the risk. Safety was not strictly monitored. The board felt that safety in the subsidiaries was something that was special to those subsidiary companies. Those comments were made by Sir Keith Bright and are found in Chapter 3 of the report.

795
It is not for me to start another witchhunt. That has been done. The inquiry heard all the evidence that was to be heard and the director general put his views forcefully and clearly. The report is welcomed wholeheartedly. It is fair and very comprehensive. In the report there is a positive framework of action to minimise the number of fires and thus reduce the possibility of one of them turning into a major incident. The report goes even further. With auditing and management of safety the ultimate objective, which is the elimination of all fires, could be obtained.
With the recommendations of high standards of cleanliness and training, together with an awareness of the probem, it is to be hoped that that ultimate objective can be reached. After all, the cause has been identified, and the issue resolved. Let us now see the management fulfil the recommendations.
4.54 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for a very interesting speech in which he underlined the main points at issue. I shall not repeat them. He has brought out very clearly the points which were so forcefully raised by the report. I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, but I cannot endorse his remark that although safety is never absolute, it can remain the objective. I think that absolute safety must be the objective. Certainly we do not achieve all our objectives in life, but they must remain absolute.
That is why I do not like the word "auditing" in regard to safety. How does one audit safety? Can one put down a series of numbers and add them up at the bottom? I do not like that word. It is the only word to which I really take exception in Mr. Fennell's remarkable and admirable report.
The noble Lord, Lord Jay, put a great deal of emphasis on money. Money, or the absence of it, did not cause this disaster. However, I agree with him that London's economy depends on the underground railway. We may— indeed, I think we shall—have to spend a lot more money to ensure that it meets the requirements. Reference was made to congestion and, heaven knows, the evening trains are to be avoided if one can possibly do so.
The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, who is not in his place at the moment, referred to the fact that in this country we have had a series of the most appalling disasters. I believe that they should be viewed as a whole. There was the Zeebrugge affair, the Piper Alpha disaster, the Bradford Football Club fire, and the Manchester airport tragedy. If one looks abroad one sees the rocket failure in the United States and of course Chernobyl in Russia.
We are coming to the end of the 20th century. This is a highly technical century, dealing with matters of immense power and requiring people of great ability. That is at the bottom of our problems today. Those who are running the railway did not have the training or the ability to do it properly. We have to ensure that there are people of ability available to operate over a very wide sphere.
796
Last week it fell to me to be told that there is such a body of very able men and women among our young people. It seems to me that our young people have a grasp of what is required. There is a body called the International Rescue Corps, and two rescue teams have already been flown out to Spitak. These young people are not only trained but are very highly kitted out with such things as laser beam equipment for cutting, vibration cameras and heat detectors. In other words, they are going equipped to meet the needs that there exist. I think that they deserve very strong commendation. This is a voluntary organisation that receives no government money and its members work for no pay. They will have to face, as best they can, what may be a very cold winter. We should encourage these young men who, I believe, will show a lead.
I should like to congratulate Mr. Fennell on his very valuable report. I shall not go through the many points that have been raised, although there are one or two on which I should like to comment. For instance, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned the fire brigade. Apparently some remote passage in something that this House approved gave a definition of a building and a structure. Mr. Fennell had to go to the late Lord Goddard to find out the meaning of "structure". That is absurd, but it shows how careful one has to be in drafting.
So far as I can see, the real trouble is staff. Of the 58 staff at King's Cross not one had any recognised public qualification. That is extraordinary today when, if one wants to enter any sphere, one must be qualified. One has to be trained. No doubt the situation is improving and training will take place in due course. However, the muddle of the fire certificate is, I think, the most tremendous nonsense.
If I may, I shall repeat that safety is not absolute and will always be a difficult matter to achieve. However, it is not a specialised subject; it is one which should form part of everyone's duty from the beginning. I find it rather difficult to understand why the number of different bodies dealing with safety is shown at the end of the report.
I do not want to take this matter any further. I simply want to say that fire is a natural hazard. Fire was not invented by man. It is dreadful that fire should break out in any area through which one-quarter of a million people—that is equivalent to three times the capacity of Wembley Stadium—walk every day. It is almost impossible to believe that they will not leave a mess behind. It is impossible to believe that the mess will not very easily inflame, and that some form of fire will not inevitably take place. What matters is the immediate ability to quell and to stop those fires.
One thing about the report that I greatly enjoyed was this. I understand that at King's Cross it was Boudicca who defeated the Roman legions. If Boudicca could defeat the Romans then we can conquer any problems on the underground railway.
5 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, it is very difficult to follow my noble friend, especially after his last remark. However, like other noble Lords, I commend the excellent report which addresses all major issues in a

797
very fair and frank way. Mr. Fennell has provided the first comprehensive report since the last national review by government bodies as long ago as 1904 by the then Board of Trade, following the Paris Metro disaster when 84 people were killed. However, rail and Tube are still the safest methods of transport in London. Thirty-one deaths at King's Cross compare with 571 deaths in Greater London on the roads. It is too early to talk about the rather nasty figures as a result of this morning's disaster.
The report addresses the tasks and safety responsibilities of Underground managers and the great exent to which the public rely on their managerial skills to guarantee safety. If there had been such an inquiry after the Oxford Circus fire in 1984, when 14 people were taken to hospital, with £5 million worth of damage caused including loss of fares, safety procedures would have improved. A very thorough report by Mr. Jonathan Roberts was sent to the Department of Transport Railway Inspectorate. It raised important issues on mismanagement and safety priorities. Like my noble friend Lord Caldecote, I am concerned that the department apparently failed to act on this report in 1985. I should like to ask my noble friend why, and what its role is in safety management.
Since the King's Cross tragedy there have been strenuous efforts to improve management and enforce stricter safety on the Underground. However, despite those very best efforts, the London Fire Brigade was called out to 521 incidents—either fires or smoulderings—from the day of the disaster, 18th November 1987. I have figures to 1st August this year. Few of those incidents were escalator fires. The Government must insist on the fullest co-operation with London Regional Transport, London Underground Company, the safety and emergency bodies, and the representative passenger bodies that rules procedure, equipment and staff training must be geared not simply to prevent outbreaks of fire but to contain such outbreaks when they occur, and to assist the safety and speedy evacuation of passengers and staff.
So far I have discussed the problem only in general terms to meet the requirements. I have already indicated that we need a definition of safety standards, assessment of the capital and revenue costs in improving train and station safety, towards what safety standards are adopted. On the time-scale and priorities given to those tasks, the public and passengers must be informed and reassured that better standards are maintained. It means that there must be external monitoring by appropriate agencies such as the London Fire Brigade and the Health and Safety Executive.
The report sets out many of the detailed requirements. We must comment on important subjects such as fire certification. Mr. Fennell has set aside an entire chapter on it. It sets out only a standard for public safety in buildings and structures where people congregate. It provides for an external audit, and the safety standards required could provide a target to aim for in terms of future investment and staff training. This may seem cumbersome but it is nevertheless essential. Perhaps I may ask my noble friend how soon legislation will
798
be brought in to make sure that Underground stations are covered by the Fire Precautions Act 1971.
We need to recognise that all Underground stations will not at present meet the standards set in fire certification. For example, London Underground has indicated that it could still take 12 minutes to evacuate King's Cross station. This compares with the normal target of three minutes for public buildings. Clearly, therefore, a safety audit of each Underground station is required, including the means of escape, fire precuations, control of smoke, ventilation and signing of passageways.
I am afraid that I am making my noble friend terribly busy, but again I should like to ask him the time-scale that he and his colleagues have given for the likely outcome of such audits that have been recommended by Mr. Fennell and whether the Government have agreed to meet fully the costs involved, which could be substantially higher than indicated by the Secretary of State if secondary exits had to be provided. There are also other recommendations. Will the Government meet the costs of the said safety improvement standards in provincial underground railways such as Tyne and Wear Metro, Glasgow Underground, Liverpool Underground, and others?
I now wish to move on to other key priorities which have been mentioned. These are staff qualities and training. One comes here to the cardinal point. The outcome of a fire is very often determined by the actions taken in the first few minutes. This inevitably places a heavy reliance on staff of all grades who first become aware that there is a fire. Clearly their role and responsibility is an urgent matter for discussion, in which the trade union which represents them must also play a part.
Here I depart from my brief. A long time ago I was a transport worker, though not on the Underground. However, many remarks have been made about staff and staff training. This has to be considered very carefully. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, spoke of management consultants. Here I must mention the fact that Dr. Tony Ridley, who has been criticised, and has now left, had the great respect of many people in the railways. He was trying, with limited resources, to turn the situation round after this terrible fire. I must mention former colleagues, people such as ticket collectors who check to see that people have paid the right fare—which is absolutely right. I had no personal contact—as I might have had as a bus conductor—with the public, which, to use a trite term, might be described as a lot faceless old "offal".
Nevertheless, the training has to be done. It has to be absolutely right. If new staff are to be introduced, they must be trained. It has to be well thought out. One improvement might be a special constable standing in a passageway. But one cannot get away with simply saying, "The situation must be improved". That statement by itself is impersonal and has to be considered very carefully. That is underlined again in the report. The trade unions, as well as management, have to get their heads together to find a ready solution.

799
My noble friend will be aware that safety underground is not just a matter of fire protection but of general security of passengers, in particular their protection from congestion and overcrowding, which matters have been touched on by various noble Lords. We are all now aware that the central London rail study is addressing these very issues. I am sure that it is a matter of concern to all noble Lords that investment to deal with all these problems should not merely revolve round congestion or fire, but should consider the two programmes jointly.
Finally, the Government have rules which are generally set out on a financial basis and therefore cannot easily take explicit account of the wider benefits of investment to improve safety and to reduce congestion. I should like my noble friend to consider these two matters together on their own account.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, ours is a caring House, as I believe has been shown this afternoon by the many sentiments that have been expressed in the context of this morning's disaster at Clapham. It is also an expert House, as has been shown by all the contributions to the debate this afternoon.
Speaking last before the "gap" in a debate embracing this expertise is always difficult, because it requires one to seek to outguess all those who speak before and to address oneself to a topic which has not been covered earlier in the proceedings. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I go along a path which I believe has not truly been covered in depth in the Fennell Report or in the debate this afternoon, although its was recognised in that expert and brilliant report—the role of the Railway Inspectorate.
The Railway Inspectorate is a body which has been dedicated since the inception of railways to the management and better regulation of railways. One may quote George Stephenson writing to the then president of the Board of Trade in 1841. Elsewhere in that letter Stephenson made clear that when he was talking about the regulation and management of railways he did not mean the boards, but the operational safety matters such as construction, the speed of trains, signalling and other matters such as rolling stock. The health and safety requirements which recur throughout the Fennell Report never seemed to have crossed Stephenson's mind. In fact they did not really appear in the 1858 directive issued by the Board of Trade—regarded as the first such document issued to the inspecting officers of railways.
Since then the inspectorate has gone about its business largely outside the public gaze, save in the case of great disasters such as that at Lewisham or today's tragedy at Clapham Junction. The traditional role has been to approve the safety of railways when they were opened and to conduct inquiries into operational accidents. I think one must underline "operational accidents" because King's Cross, although one can look on it as a railway accident, was an accident where trains were peripheral. It has always successfully sought to establish the causes of accidents and then to establish preventative measures
800
which would stop such accidents from occurring again. The inspectorate has sought to turn such measures into practice, acting more by persuasion, discussion or by consultation, as has been brought out by several noble Lords this evening, than by sanction. The infinitely greater safety that I feel on a railway train than I do when I travel by road is a testimony to the inspectorate's competence over the years.
It seems to me that traditionally the inspectorate has been dominated by its operational role in the railways system. Health and safety were not in its original remit and they do not appear to be featured very much until the Health and Safety Act 1974 which is highlighted in the Fennell Report. In Section 4 of Chapter 18 of the report Mr. Fennell concludes that the inspectorate had misunderstood the health and safety aspects of its duties and hence it failed to allocate sufficient resource—and resource in relation to the inspectorate is really the keyword of my speech—to that aspect.
Earlier I drew a distinction between persuasion and sanction when talking about the inspectorate's role as historically practised. It is alarming to me that by the time of the King's Cross tragedy the inspectorate, to quote the report,
"did not have the staff resources to undertake time-consuming preparatory work on prosecutions",
where it felt that things were not as they should be. Although I have not identified any manpower factors in the Fennell Report, it seemed to me to be symptomatic of cheese-paring. Parenthetically I may say that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, in introducing the debate said that he hoped and felt that we all wished for a non-political debate. He deserves a slight slap on the wrist for making a political point about the growth of investment in LRT since it was denationalised. However, it seems to me to have been cheeseparing that between 1985 and 1987 the strength of the inspectorate fell by some 16 per cent., from 36 staff to 31.
Three factors seem to shout for this trend to be reversed urgently. As the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, told us, London Underground has preempted the Fennell inquiry in setting up its own ongoing safety audit which will be checked by London Regional Transport. But who, and several noble Lords have touched on this this evening, is to check LRT? It seems to me that it can only be the inspectorate, because they have the people with the expertise. But I have to ask myself whether, given the expertise, they have the resource.
British Rail meanwhile has set in train its own enhanced safety programme and has recently appointed a director of safety. Some £8 million is immediately to be spent on improvements. So far, but, can one say, not so good? Some noble Lords will know that despite the chain of disasters which the noble Lord opposite mentioned, this year French railways has had a year of so many disasters in such a short period as to make the list he mentioned—I will not say trivial. French railways has seen the resignation of its chairman. It now has proposals to spend no less than £400 million, 50 times more than the British Rail figure I have just mentioned. It is getting on for twice the combination of the British

801
Rail figure and the London Underground figure that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, mentioned. French railways has plans to spend £400 million on safety improvements.
All this inevitably makes one ask whether the resources available to London Transport or to British Rail are sufficient. Again I return to this word "resource". I wonder whether we have not been lulled—I mentioned my feeling of safety on a train as opposed to my feeling when riding in a car—into a false sense of security, because British Rail, taking one year with another, is so very safe by comparison with what one might call British road. Not only is it safer, but its safety is much more economic. I cannot gather a total social cost of the price of road accidents in this country. While my calculator does not go that far, I gather that the individual cost—I am indebted to the Minister for this—is nowadays calculated at about half a million pounds per person. If one is talking of that kind of cost, together with the number or road accidents, particularly fatal road accidents, it seems that someone—I do not necessarily say that it should be the Government—should find the money to fund such safety improvements as are immediately necessary. Not only that, but having funded or resourced those improvements, we must make sure that the resource is properly matched.
I turn now from the resource available to rail operators. I should like briefly to touch on the inspectorate. I feel that the inspectorate too is underresourced in a number of ways, not just in pounds, shillings and pence. There is the cutback in staff, which I have already mentioned. There is its inability to cope with its workload, which I have also mentioned.
Finally, there is another dimension; that of the skill and competence of those employed by the Railway Inspectorate. Today's debate has shown that the demands upon it are growing as a result of the Fennell Report. However, additional demands are generated simply by the growth in traffic on British Rail, the London Underground and other railway sectors. Train mileage is increasing and with that one must face the possibility of things going wrong. The scope and opportunity for that possibility also increases.
A growing number of light railway Bills are going through the House. The provincial sectors were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. Those existing provincial railway operators—such as Tyne and Wear Metro and others—and those who are proposing to run metropolitan railways of one kind or another will impose an increased demand on the talents and skills of the Railway Inspectorate. There are the demands posed by the Joint Safety Commission as enshrined in the Channel Tunnel Act. There are also the health and safety aspects as enshrined in the Fennell Report.
As regards the health and safety aspects, there are a number of satisfactory channels through which people can train and qualify before joining the inspectorate. However, I am not so sure that that holds true in respect of the operational side of British Rail. Throughout history the inspectorate has drawn on the Royal Engineers for its junior staff, many of whom went on to become senior staff. Until recently
802
it would have been difficult to think of an accident inquiry which had not been conducted by an inspector with a military background. However, I understand that that training ground has dried up.
I welcome the strengthening of the inspectorate and hope that the Minister will have more to say about it when winding up the debate. However, I envisage a scenario in which the inspecting officers of the future are drawn not least from railway operating companies because the traditional source has dried up. Using the military connection that I have mentioned as an analogy, I fear that the railways inspectorate may find that on the operational side it is employing passed-over majors of the operating companies; those who do not see themselves making it to the top. After all, one can be at the top of British Rail at the age of 42. They may be those who will not make the top grade and who take another option. That poses two problems. The first is that of ability. Is a passed-over major in such a position because he cannot prove his ability? The second is the more personal problem of people being put in charge of, and being in an almost judge-and-jury relationship with, their erstwhile colleagues in the operating organisations from which they came.
I am concerned about resources for safety but particularly for the inspectorate. I hope that when winding up the noble Lord will confirm my sentiments about resources for the inspectorate and that its enhancement and any strengthening will not be at the expense of quality.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the debate has shown that its purpose, and that of the inquiry and the report, is to examine the cause or causes of the fire. It is also to discover how it may be possible to ensure that there is no repetition of such a tragedy. It is tragic that on the day chosen to debate this subject in your Lordships' House we are told of the tragedy at Clapham Junction. The Minister may be able to update the House on the details of the accident. I understand that the death toll may be close to that at King's Cross. I am sure that the condolences of all noble Lords go to relatives of the injured and deceased not only at King's Cross but also Clapham Junction.
In a system as vast and complicated as that of the London Underground, with so much interdependence between thousands of employees from the chairman downwards, and the continuing sophistication of the hardware required to run a railway, special and specific safety disciplines must be developed and continually updated. In addition to the interconnection between the staff running the Underground railway and the machinery, another problem has arisen during the past few years. It is that there has been a large increase in the number of passengers. Anyone who uses the Underground regularly will have noticed that the number of passengers increases every month.
I am at one with the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, in saying that the London economy is totally bound up with the importance and safe running of the Underground railway. The noble Earl made an

803
important point in saying that total safety must be our aim, however unattainable it may be. As I read it, the burden of the report is that, tragically there was a conspicuous lack of any network-wide safety disciplines in London Underground Transport. It would appear that the management structure was almost an obstacle to any overall safety approach.
Everyone has paid tribute to Mr. Desmond Fennell, QC, for the report's lucidity and the masterly way in which he compiled it. Many noble Lords who have read reports will put this report high on their scale of readability and will praise the probing and brilliant way in which it has been laid out. We are all able to understand it and to gain a great deal from it. I hope that an attempt will be made by London Underground Transport to have an abridged version of the report issued to its staff. It would be a good introduction to safety and to its importance. Most people have paid respect to the importance and quality of the report.
Smoking was banned on the London Underground in 1985 following the Oxford Circus fire. One believes that in that case there must previously have been a complacent attitude on the part of the board. It must have had incredible luck considering the fact that millions of people must have smoked on escalators—most of them wooden—until approximately 10 years ago. The fire record was then nothing like so bad as it appears to have been since the reduction in smoking. I believe that the fire at Oxford Circus occurred when there was a considerable restriction on smoking in the Underground but not the complete ban which now exists.
I should like to ask—and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, mentioned this—what is this subtle difference between "smouldering" and a fire? Instructions seem to have been given to members of the Undergound staff that they should not refer to a fire but should always refer to smouldering. That seems to be a very serious matter indeed. Sir Keith Bright has already been quoted as saying that financial matters were strictly monitored by London Regional Transport but safety was not.
Chapter 4 of the report, with which it is very difficult to deal, is a most important chapter. Mr. Fennell has entitled it,
"The Ethos of London Underground".
That is what we are trying to get at. He obviously got that from, if I may so call it, the canteen talk of London Transport. He spoke of the four barons who run London Transport—the chief civil engineer, the chief signal engineer, the chief electrical engineer and the chief mechanical engineer. The engineering director, Mr. Lawrence, said that his main task over nine years was the breaking down of the boundaries between the different engineering disciplines. I believe we are entitled to ask whether the department was aware of this regime of the four barons. That probably goes back to fairly early on in the history of the London Underground when they became entrenched in their offices and it became almost impossible to change general attitudes. That is why it is so apt to speak of the ethos of London Underground.
804
Mr. Lawrence suggested that senior management had been satisfied with the processes in place. As I tried to say earlier, when smoking was allowed on the Underground, luck seemed to be with it because there was nothing like the history of fires which we seem to have now—and nothing as bad as King's Cross.
However, there was a series of reports from within London Underground and from outside bodies which spoke of the lack of training for staff to cope with emergencies, and particularly of fire hazards in the system. Therefore, I should like to speak briefly—because again the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, mentioned this—on where the buck stops. That is what we are really concerned about. I believe that my noble friend Lord Jay made the point most succinctly when he said that one cannot get away from the fact that part of the ethos of running London Transport came from the Government and the cutting of costs and staff. If numbers of staff are cut, obviously there is a situation such as obtained at King's Cross where there were not enough people or the people required were in the wrong places. Also, if there is a reduced staff—just enough with no extra staff—it is impossible to send staff on training courses. They cannot be trained for the job.
I repeat what has been said before; namely, that that is a false economy. One can discern the grip of the false economies and the superficiality of being able to make economies when it ends with a tragedy such as there was at King's Cross. I should like to ask the Minister whether new money will be provided for the new safety measures. Of course that would necessitate a considerable increase not only in staff at headquarters but staff at Underground stations and staff able to move around who understand what is happening on the ground. We are continually told that one difficulty in the police force is that there are not enough people moving among the public to know what is happening. It would certainly appear to be true as regards London Underground because frequently there is a great dearth of staff in the stations, particularly the stations away from the centre of London and the West End.
It is shocking to discover that the Department of Transport did not seem to be aware of many of the things happening on London Transport, particularly as regards safety. I believe that the report makes a very important point, which I am sure other noble Lords have seen. Chapter 5, paragraph 4 states that there were no organisation charts of management available, that in fact it is worthy to note that the charts which were produced had to be expressly prepared for the investigation, and that witnesses from London Underground generally only knew about the organisation of their own department or division. It also states that that may be indicative of the compartmentalised approach to management.
I should like to know whether the Ministry had any charts or any indication of the management structure of London Transport. I should also like to know whether they are aware that there was such a dearth of training as regards fire fighting, that the hydrants of London Transport were not compatible with the hydrants of the London Fire Brigade, and many other points. I suggest to the Minister that at the end of the day London Tranport's management was

805
responsible, as were the individuals who were not doing all that they could have done at the site of the fire before it took a grip. However, some responsibility should be on the Government and the Ministry for not having sufficiently monitored the system, which is so important to London, to ensure that it was being properly looked after.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have had this afternoon a constructive debate, on a matter which is as serious as it is important. I acknowledge the firmly held and positive points of view which have been put forward, from all parts of your Lordships' House.
The King's Cross fire shocked everybody in this country; indeed it was widely reported throughout the world. However, it was of especial concern to Londoners. The Underground is after all part of the fabric of daily life in this city. I spoke earlier—and anybody who has read the report will have seen the criticisms for themselves—of the shortcomings in London Underground which that report revealed. Those shortcomings must not be glossed over. But I think it also right and responsible to remind noble Lords that overall the Underground has had a good safety record. In the 12 years before King's Cross only one passenger was killed in a train accident, and yet 2½ million journeys are made on the system every working day. We cannot allow ourselves complacency, after so dreadful an event; but we are entitled to look at the picture in the round.
I have spoken of London, but I also said earlier that Mr. Fennell's report warrants study by all railway operators, and that British Rail were taking action. Noble Lords may wish to know that the Chairman of the British Railways Board has told my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that he is using the report as a basis for management action within his own organisation. As the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, pointed out, he has created a new post of director, safety, and has also appointed a special fire adviser. The chairman has already ensured that in response to Mr. Fennell's recommendations a safety audit has been carried out of all BR's Underground stations—there are a number of them, not only in London—followed up by a programme of new works. Further management action is being taken to ensure good fire safety practice throughout British Rail, not just in Underground stations.
My noble friend Lord Teviot mentioned other underground or metro systems. I agree that the Fennell Report has lessons for such systems as the Tyne and Wear Metro and the Glasgow Underground. Those railways are the responsibility of the relevant passenger transport authorities but my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Scotland have written to these authorities drawing attention to the Fennell Report.
Returning to London, there was obviously a lack of clear responsibility for safety in the London Underground system. I agree that there are very serious criticisms in the report. However, I can tell the House that LRT and LUL have told us that this is a point which they have been keen to act upon. They
806
sought to set up clear lines of responsibility; for example, 10 new general managers—one for each Underground line—but with the safety audit system alongside.
As regards finance, noble Lords may like to be reminded of the many very large investment projects either in progress or approved, many of which will help to relieve congestion. I know that that is of concern to many noble Lords, understandably in view of the almost 80 per cent. increase in passenger miles in the past six years.
Thus, at King's Cross itself, London Underground intend to build a new passenger subway. The Central Line is being modernised, with extra capacity, at a cost of £720 million. At Angel station the narrow island platform is being eliminated, escalators are replacing lifts and a new ticket hall will be built at a cost of £45 million. Sixteen extra trains are being provided, costing £45 million. An enlarged ticket hall is being built at Liverpool Street, with more escalators, at a cost of £7 million. Recognising the need for longer term solutions, the Central London Rail Study has been set up to develop a strategy for meeting forecast demand. I hope noble Lords—in particular my noble friends Lord Fairfax of Cameron and Lord Selkirk—who have suffered from the undoubted pressures and discomfort caused by growing numbers of people wanting to travel, after a long period of declining numbers, will take some comfort from this.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the plans for expansion and improvement in the Underground system include more rolling stock so that those of us who travel in the rush hour can avoid being squashed like sardines?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have already mentioned that 16 extra trains will be provided. There are other examples, and that is not the end of the matter.
As regards finance for safety measures, I remind the House of what was in the report and which I quoted in my opening remarks. I emphasise one vital point. That statutory duty for safety is clearly with the railway operators and not with the Government. This is a long-standing principle and no one is questioning that now. It is for LRT to make the case for the finance needed for safety. The Government have refused no cases for investment since taking over LRT in 1984 and we have agreed to all the spending proposals on safety since Fennell, which is £266 million over the next three years. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that that is, indeed, new money. Therefore, finance is not a problem. I have already said that finance will not be a barrier to the implementation of any of the Fennell recommendations.
Lord Jay: My Lords, before the Minister leaves finance, arc the Government making any change to the general revenue target which has been imposed on London Transport and which has led to the reduction in staff and, therefore, to a great many of these difficulties? Is not that being adjusted?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Jay, will allow me to go further in my speech he might find that I will answer these questions. I shall, of course, attempt to answer all questions put to me by noble Lords and if I am not interrupted too often I shall be able to continue with that task.
London Regional Transport has been accused of monitoring finance but not safey. Of course we must now look forward and LRT have made changes, which I have already described, including the setting up of a safety audit committee of the LRT board. LRT has assured my honourable friend the Minister of State that there are no misunderstandings on LRT's statutory safety duty.
As well as crowding, the attention of the public, and indeed your Lordships' House, is understandably often directed to London Underground staffing. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, made particular reference to that aspect. One always hesitates to deploy quotations but it is right to remind your Lordships that in paragraph 6 of Chapter 19 of this report Mr. Fennell says:
"I found no evidence that the reduction in the number of operating maintenance staff contributed directly to the disaster at King's Cross".
It is equally right to remind your Lordships that Mr. Fennell then goes on to say that, in his view,
"the issue is not purely the number of staff in stations but rather the need to establish a proper level of safety at each station which can then be met by the provision of either automated aids or the proper disposition of staff."
I am sure that Mr. Fennell is right.
Of course, when it comes to automation many noble Lords will have in mind the automatic ticketing system which London Underground has been introducing. Several noble Lords—notably the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Jay—referred to that system. I think I can most usefully repeat the fact that there is to be a review of that system and that London Underground is similarly reviewing all its station staffing plans. For example, I am told that the recent press reports about 1,000 job cuts were based on out-of-date figures. Again, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Jay, in particular, will find that reassuring.
I think noble Lords agree that it is not enough for London Underground, or any operator, to make improvements; they must also keep their customers informed. In that context, Mr. Fennell recommended that London Underground should arrange for publication, through the London Regional Passengers Committee, of reports following the regular Fire Brigade inspections of underground stations. He also recommended publication of the regular progress reports which London Underground is to make to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I can tell the House that London Underground says that it intends to fulfill both those recommendations. I hope that that will give some encouragement to my noble friend Lord Caldecote who raised that point.
I have spoken of regular progress reports to the Secretary of State. I think it also right to reaffirm the very long-standing principle that the railway operator has the direct responsibility for railway
808
safety. I am clear that there must be no ambiguity on that point; the interest of passengers would not be served by the railway operator leaning on a man from the Ministry coming to tell him what to do.
My noble friend Lord Caldecote asked whether anyone in the Department of Transport was responsible for passenger safety. As I have said, it is a long-standing principle, established over a century ago by our Victorian predecessors, that there must be operator responsibility for safety. I am sure that is right. We cannot have ambiguity. Equally, there is a long-standing principle of external agencies—in this case, the Railway Inspectorate—enforcing safety duty. It is in recognition of the importance of this role that we have taken steps to increase the resources available to the Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways in fulfilling his enforcement responsibilities to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport and the Health and Safety Commission.
Turning to the role of the Railway Inspectorate, mentioned by a number of noble Lords in this debate, it is true to say, as I said in my opening remarks, that at the time of the accident it was understaffed. We have had an extensive recruitment exercise and we expect to fill seven out of the eight vacancies early in the new year. We accept that the equivalent of at least one man, full time, is needed on LUL safety checks; plus other special one-off checks or whatever is needed to ensure adequate coverage. I also draw the attention of noble Lords to the special team set up by the Railway Inspectorate with the help of the Health and Safety Executive and the London Fire Brigade to examine underground safety management systems, including their systems for monitoring the implementation of necessary actions. The team's work should be completed in March.
As regards working with the fire brigade, a matter to which my noble friend Lord Teviot referred, I assure him that the Railway Inspectorate is redoubling its efforts already made in close working with the fire brigade. I understand that London Underground is doing the same. A figure for call-outs of the fire brigade to the Underground has been mentioned and it has gone up considerably recently. Perhaps noble Lords will be reassured that London Underground is appearing very properly to take care to call the brigade out whenever there is any suspicion of fire. This increases the statistics, but it means that the point is being taken care of.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I do not wish to interrupt the noble Lord any more than is necessary. Is he aware of a press report that a member of the British Transport Police said that the public was now getting too sensitive and was reporting too many smoulderings? This has occurred in recent weeks. I do not expect the Minister to answer me now, but does he not agree that it is deplorable that someone in that situation is not actually encouraging London Underground to contact the fire brigade as often as Mr. Fennell suggests that they should?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very interesting point. It is now the policy that the London Fire Brigade should be called in the case of any kind of a fire. I believe it was the noble

809
Lord, Lord Carmichael, who referred to the use of the word "smouldering". I gather that that terminology has been dropped and they are now referred to as fires. So there should be no misunderstanding at all. If what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has said is correct, then it is very wrong.
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, asked about the quality of applicants for jobs with the Railway Inspectorate. All applicants for posts are considered carefully and only those with the appropriate qualifications, experience and personal qualities are offered posts. Standards are certainly not being lowered. We are successfully recruiting some people from British Rail. It is not so much a question of being judge and jury concerning former colleagues as the necessity for proper experience. It is rather less of judge and jury than perhaps poacher turned gamekeeper; and who better than a former employee to do that?
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked about the paint called Prodorite. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, more or less answered that point. During the investigation Mr. Fennell gave an interim judgment that exonerated the product.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. I was not referring so much to the paintwork on the escalator itself. It has been suggested that there has been no comment on the general paintwork in the concourse and elsewhere.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I believe that is the paintwork on the ceilings to which I was referring and this product has been exonerated. As regards the target dates for these safety measures about which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked me to be more specific, I understand that the removal of the wooden panelling on the escalators should be completed by July to August of next year. Automatic sprinklers under all escalators should be installed by December 1990. As regards underground radio communications, known as the leaky feeder system, which permit the use of radios underground, these should be installed at 42 deep Tube stations by the end of February 1989. There is also a pilot scheme involving trained staff with radio and help point booths. That is already in operation at 13 stations.
As regards the smoking ban on the Underground, immediately after the fire the ban already in force below the surface was extended to all LUL operational property wherever situated. Fresh and repeated reminders to all LUL staff and British Transport Police on the need to enforce this law have been made. The ban is reinforced by more litter bins and cigarette stubbing bins and more "No smoking" signs and posters, especially on the escalators. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, also referred to the response to previous fires on the Underground system. Mr. Fennell felt obliged to make criticism of LUL's arrangements to follow up these fires. I understand that one of the aims of the LUL's new safety audit system is to ensure that lessons from fires are learned and followed up.
Turning to the question of the British Transport Police and crime on the Underground referred to by my noble friend Lord Fairfax of Cameron and the
810
noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, I agree that the incidence of crime is unacceptably high. It must be seen in the perspective of 800 million passenger journeys; that is, one assault for every 500,000 journeys. The Government's concern is reflected in the crime report and £15 million is being made available for improved communications underground at 42 stations, to which I have already referred in a different context. There will be more help points at stations, passenger talkback alarms, closed circuit television, safe waiting areas and other items such as improved lighting in subways.
The establishment of the Underground division of the British Transport Police has been increased since 1986 from 280 to 350 police officers, which is a 25 per cent. increase, following the publication of the department's report on crime on the London Underground. Recruitment is proceeding as fast as possible and 329 officers are now in post. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, suggested that an outside consultancy should look at LUL's management. This may be appropriate in the longer term. The first priority must be to follow up the specific Fennell recommendations on the management of safety. There is to be a new top management in the Undergound; an LRT board member responsible for safety audit; a special review by the Railway Inspectorate of management systems for safety; a chief safety inspector; a chief fire officer and a safety auditor, all of London Underground.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, suggested that London Underground was too introverted in some of its appointments, and I believe that is correct. Mr. Fennell had harsh words on the subject. The noble Lord will therefore be pleased to know that the new managing director comes from outside and that the three new safety appointments that I have just mentioned are all from outside either the Underground or the LRT in general. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, criticised the financial objectives of the Underground which were set down in the Secretary of State's letter of 1984. I cannot accept that those objectives ignored safety. In the very first paragraph it refers to the statutory duties of the board and it accepts the framework of duties. Section 2(2)(b) of the London Regional Transport Act 1984 referred expressly to the duty of the LRT to have due regard to economy, efficiency and safety. I have already commented upon the staffing issues.
As I said in my opening remarks, we really see nothing incompatible between the efficient use of resources and safety. I must point out that the cost objectives were not only agreed by LRT but exceeded by them. I feel obliged to remind the noble Lord, Lord Jay, that the growth in traffic has also meant a growth in revenue, which is up by over 30 per cent. between 1984–85 and 1987–88. Therefore it is not unreasonable to reduce the burden on the taxpayer and the ratepayer. But we must be constructive, and the Government will be taking account of the cost of implementing the Fennell recommendations alongside other factors in setting LRT new objectives to replace those of 1984.
My noble friend Lord Teviot asked about the timescale for bringing in regulations under the Fire Precautions Act. My right honourable friend the

811
Home Secretary intends to make the regulations early next year. The wide consultation necessary as a preliminary is now in hand. The implementation dates will be different for different safety measures. For instance, staff training will have an early date because the Underground has essentially made the necessary changes, but larger physical measures such as automatic sprinklers will have a rather later date.
After a disaster like King's Cross the Government must inevitably keep in close touch with London Regional Transport and London Underground to be clear about progress on the follow-up to Mr. Fennell's recommendations. There are therefore regular meetings and reports, at ministerial and official level, with action where necessary. I am sure that noble Lords would expect no less. I repeat that we have had a useful debate this afternoon. I can assure your Lordships that not only will I read again tomorrow what has been said but I shall be careful to draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and my honourable friend the
812
Minister of State with responsibility for London Regional Transport. I end this closing speech as I ended my opening one, by stressing the Government's recognition that all concerned, including Ministers, must pursue vigorously the lessons from Mr. Fennell's thorough and wise report on the tragic events of 18th November last year.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he answer one factual point? In the report Mr. Fennell recommended that Prodorite should have its costs paid. Does the noble Lord know whether that has been done. If he does not, perhaps he will write to me.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that I shall have to write to the noble Lord on that point.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at three minutes past six o'clock.

  EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS
  EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS
  GATT URUGUAY ROUND
  GATT URUGUAY ROUND
  EC SHEEPMEAT DIVISION: STAFFING
  EC SHEEPMEAT DIVISION: STAFFING
  MERCHANT NAVY OFFICERS: CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
  MERCHANT NAVY OFFICERS: CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
  SDI: US/ISRAELI PROJECT
  SDI: US/ISRAELI PROJECT