Sitting of 22 February 1988

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

  Imprisonment of a Member
  Mr. Speaker: I have received a letter from the resident magistrate of the Belfast petty sessions informing me that Mr. Peter Robinson, the hon. Member for Belfast, East, has been sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 30 days. I shall cause the text of the letter to be published in the Votes and Proceedings and in the Official Report.
  Following is the letter:
  Dear Mr. Speaker
  Peter Robinson, Member of Parliament for Belfast, East was convicted by me at Belfast Petty Sessions on 8 December 1987 of using a mechanically propelled vehicle without a licence under the Vehicles (Excise) Act (NI) 1972 contrary to Section 8(1) of the said Act. I fined him £75 ordered him to pay arrears of duty of £100 and £3 for costs within 28 days.
  As those sums have not been paid Mr. Robinson was today committed to Prison for a period of 30 days.
  F. G. Harty
  Resident Magistrate

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  SELWYN COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT

    Air Traffic (Safety)
    Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority on the safety regulations for flights over London, Glasgow and Manchester.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): The regulation of air safety is the responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority. The chairman keeps me informed on important issues.
    Mr. Wray: Does the Secretary of State agree that we have had two near misses in the past fortnight and 365 near misses since 1986? Obviously, many complaints have been made to the Civil Aviation Authority, and air traffic controllers have complained about the reporting system. Does the Secretary of State agree that the skies have become like the A74, in that they are overcrowded, and will he consider extending the vertical and horizontal space?
    Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that in recent years the number of risk-bearing air misses for commercial air transport has been decreasing, not increasing. That is important. We must not be complacent, but nor must we overreact. It is
    Mr. Higgins: I accept what my right hon. Friend has said, but is he satisfied that everything is being done to encourage the reporting of these events so that we have reliable statistics? On the question of capacity, is there not an argument for having more routes, especially across the Channel, so that traffic can be more widely spread? In particular, will my right hon. Friend investigate the restrictions placed by the Ministry of Defence on Channel flying?
    Mr. Channon: As my right hon. Friend knows, he and I are in discussion with the Ministry of Defence about that latter point. I do not want to raise his hopes, but obviously we shall investigate that.
    It is important that the House should understand the procedures. The CAA chairman has initiated discussions of the air miss reporting and investigation system and he has invited my officials to participate. It is an extremely sensible idea and I hope that the House will welcome it.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: Does the Secretary of State accept that my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal party was not being alarmist when he last raised this matter on 8 February? Does he accept that we are seeking a proper investigation into what is going on? One does not want to be alarmist, but I, too, fly regularly up to and down from Scotland — [Interruption.] Flying frightens the living daylights out of me. Many people are seriously worried. If there is so much traffic in the south-east, why does the Secretary of State not accept that more planes should fly out of Prestwick, for example?
    Mr. Channon: I am longing for more planes to fly out of Prestwick and every other provincial aerodrome, including Scottish ones. The more traffic that can be encouraged to do that, the better. I think that that is common ground between us. I hope the hon. Lady realises that the number of near misses on the form of transport that she is now using is going down, not up. That is the point that I must make the House understand. With respect, her right hon. Friend's speech last autumn— I cannot understand why people keep referring to it—was alarmist and irresponsible and did not take these factors into account.
    Mr. McCrindle: With the incident over Essex at the weekend coming only two weeks after he announced an inquiry into the severe air miss of a couple of weeks ago, will my right hon. Friend consider extending the range of that inquiry within his Department to include the more recent incident? Taking our cue from him, and trying to keep a balance between those who wish to be alarmist and those who wish to be complacent, may we ask whether the time is not on the horizon when individual inquiries into individual incidents should be replaced by an inquiry into the whole issue of air traffic control, so as to bring some sort of reassurance to the many who fly and those who live under flight paths?
    Mr. Channon: I understand my hon. Friend's views, and I listened to what he said this morning. The present signs are that the incident to which he referred was not a risk-bearing air miss — I told the House why a few moments ago. It is the chief inspector, not I—I have no power to change this without legislation—who by law decides what the AAIB is to investigate. It is right that he should not be under political pressure from Ministers. An inspector's investigation of the incident over Lydd on 6
    4
    February is under way. Any safety recommendations that emerge about air traffic control systems from the investigation will be reported to the CAA without delay.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Does it not make matters worse for the south-east that large numbers of northerners must still travel down to Heathrow and Gatwick to reach destinations abroad for which there should be scheduled services from Manchester? What recent action has the right hon. Gentleman taken further to develop the regional airports?
    Mr. Channon: The right hon. Gentleman knows better than anyone—we discussed it recently—that there are now a substantial number of new international destinations from Manchester. I hope that we shall have formal discussions with the Americans before long. I am at one with the right hon. Gentleman in wanting opportunities for Manchester airport, and many other provincial airports, to expand. That will be good in itself and will help to ease congestion in London.
    Mr. Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to differentiate between reported air misses and risk-bearing air misses? It is clear from what he said that it is four times safer to fly today, in terms of reported air misses, than it was 10 years ago. Following on from what he said about risk-bearing air misses, the figure for 1986 was only 16, while the figure for 1977 was 45. There again, there has been a massive improvement. Does he agree that it is wholly inconsistent with the dedication and skill of air traffic controllers for a small minority of that profession to try to make political capital out of the present circumstances?
    Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend has put his finger on the right point, especially in the first part of his question. Trends in risk-bearing air misses have been markedly downwards in recent years. That is precisely the point. I hope the House realises that, as a result of that, air journeys in the London area have been proved safer in recent years than they were in the past.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the Minister realise that many flights from the three main regional airports, Glasgow, Manchester and Belfast, do not leave on time because of chaos in London? Even if they leave on time, they cannot land because of chaos there. As one-hour flights now require one and a half hours, will the Secretary of State stop passing the buck to the Civil Aviation Authority and accept the responsibility for the increasing chaos at London airports?
    Mr. Channon: I am not passing the buck. The CAA has the statutory duty by law, as passed by this House. That is why I must reiterate where the statutory duty lies. I am considering a number of points about Belfast flights which concern the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.
    As for the general issue of delays at airports, the most important duty must be for the CAA and controllers at airports to ensure that safety is paramount, even if it causes delay from time to time.
    Mr. Jessel: May I remind my right hon. Friend that there has been no major crash at Heathrow since about 1972? As there are 300,000 flights per year, that is a very impressive record. However, near misses are alarming for people beneath the flight path and I hope that the inquiry will be extremely thorough.
    Mr. Channon: I endorse what my hon. Friend said about the large number of flights from Heathrow and the very good safety record there. That is why I urge the House to understand what is going on and to appreciate the extraordinary good record of pilots and air traffic controllers, all of whom ought to be congratulated.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Minister not recognise that he has become so complacent at the Dispatch Box that he has degenerated into using claptrap? What on earth is a non-risk-bearing air miss? If it is not risky, why is it reported? To talk like that does not help the situation one little bit. The time has come for the Secretary of State to get all the interested parties together to have a proper investigation into air safety. The Secretary of State may think that people are not worried, but I can tell him that they are, and that they will be especially worried at Easter when there will be much more traffic in the air than there is now.
    Mr. Channon: Untypically, the hon. Gentleman has asked a ridiculous question. All incidents and sightings should be reported, whether they contain a risk or are non-risk bearing. Preliminary indications in the incident at the weekend are that there was not a risk. Quite rightly, air statistics have been compiled like this for a great many years, including the years when the hon. Gentleman's party was in office. I cannot understand why he makes that ridiculous attack.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that within controlled air space aircraft in a position where they ought not to be should properly be reported by other aircraft using the same air space? In that situation there is not necessarily any risk, but it comes into the category of an air miss. It is unfortunate that Opposition Members do not understand the difference between the genuine concern about what ought to be done and the fact that there is a need, perhaps to satisfy the public, for some alternative to the Civil Aviation Authority investigating itself. That may well be one of the ways of alleviating risks. I do not accept that there is an increasing risk.
    Mr. Channon: I agree with my hon. Friend's first point about air misses. I thought that that was common knowledge throughout the House, and I am amazed that it is not. My hon. Friend asked about air miss reporting and investigating systems. As I have told the House, the CAA chairman has initiated discussions about that matter. My Department will participate in them. It is an extremely good idea and I hope that the House welcomes it.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have allowed a rather long run on that question and I think the House will understand if we now proceed rather more rapidly.

    Safety Standards
    Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to review the enforcement of transport safety standards by his Department; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Channon: The safe movement of people and goods is one of my top priorities. Effective enforcement of safety standards is part of that and I keep it under constant review.
    Mr. Davies: I should like to return to yesterday's near miss, because the Secretary of State has said that on the one hand it was a near miss and on the other hand no safety implications were attached. Secondly, he said that in any event it is not his responsibility. That is completely unsatisfactory. Does the Secretary of State not understand that when hundreds of lives are put at risk there is a clear need to investigate, not only the original individual circumstances, but the system of reporting that allows such events to take place? Will he give an undertaking that he will launch a thorough and open investigation, not only of individual cases, but of the system of reporting?
    Mr. Channon: I have already answered that point twice and I do not know why the hon. Gentleman wants to return to it. He has completely distorted my original answer. The whole House knows that if there is a sighting, or any other incident that should be reported, it must be reported. The vast majority of incidents that are reported are not risk bearing. Surely that must be understood by the House. It seems from preliminary reports that yesterday's incident was such a case.
    Mr. Ashby: In matters of transport safety, does my right hon. Friend think it right that the Civil Aviation Authority should investigate itself? Does he also think it right that when the authority produces a report, it produces it to itself? Does he not think that he should be the recipient of that report and that it should be the sort of report that can be debated in the House?
    Mr. Channon: In general, air miss reports are widely circulated. I see them because my civil aviation safety adviser wants to discuss them, and it is he who receives the reports from the CAA. Therefore, I have answered my hon. Friend's point. As for the air miss reporting and investigation system, I have told the House four times that the CAA chairman has initiated discussions. I very much welcome that.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Secretary of State not realise that for all inhabitants of London his replies will not be satisfactory? Following the point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), unlike sea or rail safety standards, which are the responsibility of the Secretary of State and which are open and visible, that for the Civil Aviation Authority is not visible or open. The CAA is judge and jury in its own court. Surely that is wrong and we need legislation to change it.
    Mr. Channon: As I have said, the CAA chairman has initiated discussions. The House says that the situation is unsatisfactory. I do not wish to politicise the issue, but I must point out that when the Labour Government were in office there were non-risk-bearing air misses. It is important that the House should understand that this is not a new situation.
    Mr. Tony Banks: It is getting worse.
    Mr. Channon: It is not getting worse. In 1978 there were 119 non-risk-incidents. Traffic has increased since then. For some reason the House will not accept that incidents can be non-risk-bearing. In fact, the numbers of no-risk misses are lower than they were in 1978. So this is not a new phenomenon, and the preliminary reports of the recent incident reveal that there was no risk.

    Channel Tunnel
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has had any recent meetings with representatives of the Anglo-French Channel tunnel construction consortium.
    Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend the Minister of State last met senior representatives of Eurotunnel and their contractors Transmanche Link on 15 February.
    Mr. Dykes: Will my hon. Friend confirm that when that brilliant project, which is going so well and was recently warmly endorsed by the Prime Minister, is completed, as soon as possible in the early 1990s, it will be the best way to allay the anxieties of people who worry about air misses between London and Paris?
    Mr. Channon: Certainly, it is a brilliant programme and it will be completed in the early 1990s. We shall take every step to ensure that it is completed to the highest safety standards.
    Mr. Anderson: Is the Minister not concerned about the disparity in Chunnel-related investment on each side of the Channel? The French are spending at least £1,200 million on the Paris-to-tunnel rail line, while British Rail is spending only £400 million on the total infrastructure. Will the Minister take shelter behind saying that this is a matter for the board, or will he take the lead and say that it is a matter of national concern with enormous regional implications, and that the Government will do something about it?
    Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood one point. The Channel tunnel is a comparatively small part of the French investment. The French are investing in a high-speed rail system linking them with Brussels and, eventually, Cologne and Amsterdam, and they are spending vast sums of money on that at the moment. British Rail has been asked to study the adequacy of investment by June this year, and it will report then. As the House knows, BR has put forward many investment proposals during the past few years, all of which have received approval.

    Heavy Goods Vehicles
    Mr. Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 25 January, Official Report, columns 23–24, what estimate has been made of the percentage of heavy goods vehicles from abroad which are overloaded, in the light of the 24 per cent. of weighed vehicles which are found to be overloaded; and what actions he proposes to reduce this figure.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): A series of surveys carried out between 1980 and 1986 showed that 20 per cent. of foreign goods vehicles selected on a random basis were overloaded by more than 5 per cent. We propose to install weighbridges at Ramsgate and Immingham, the two major ferry ports which lack them. Consultations are also being held with selected port authorities about testing automatic equipment for weighing incoming lorries.
    Mr. Chapman: Will my hon. Friend accept that the fact that one in five incoming vehicles is found to be overweight is a matter of deep concern? As the maximum penalty on
    8
    a successful prosecution is only a £200 fine, should not, at the very least, magistrates courts be encouraged to impose the maximum fine?
    Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There must be effective deterrents. We must be able to catch and deter them. Overweight lorries are unsafe, they are cheating and they cause more damage to the roads than they pay for. I agree with my hon. Friend.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister satisfied with the situation that police forces, for understandable reasons, are not taking action when they know that the drivers will soon be out of the country, and possibly will not return for prosecution? There is a problem, and it is becoming an increasing worry.
    Mr. Bottomley: Overloaded vehicles are prohibited movement until the load is adjusted, and that is one of the ways in which it cannot pay lorry drivers to overload. We need to use both deterrence and enforcement, as well as trying to ensure that the enforcement strategy is such that people find that it is not worth their while cheating.
    Mr. Sayeed: Following the point made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), does it not make sense to seize part of the cargo of overweight lorries, take a lien on it and not hand it back until the fines are redeemed?
    Mr. Bottomley: It would be right for us to go on considering effective ways to reduce this bad problem.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will the Minister confirm that one of the problems identified after the sinking of the Herald of Free Enterprise was the danger posed by overloaded lorries on ferries? The Minister's complacent response to this problem will not do. What will the Government do, both in negotiations with foreign Governments and at British ports, to ensure that it is virtually impossible for lorries to risk life at sea by coming to this country overloaded?
    Mr. Bottomley: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the last sentence of my initial reply.

    Merchant Fleet
    Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the future of the British merchant fleet.
    Mr. Channon: A policy document from the General Council of British Shipping, a leaflet from the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers, and about 45 letters from members of the public.
    Mr. Wallace: Will the Minister accept that in spite of the admittedly helpful measures in the Merchant Shipping Bill, which is passing through the House, there is still considerable anxiety about the state of our merchant shipping, not only because of the dramatic decline in merchant tonnage, but because over the past 10 years the pay rates for seafarers have gone down considerably in comparison with rates paid in comparable occupations on land? With the Budget looming, has the Secretary of State made, or does he intend to make, representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about having special tax arrangements to encourage the replacement of ships or the undertaking of heavy repairs? Will the Secretary of State also promote special tax and social security arrangements for seafarers, as is done in other EEC countries?
    Mr. Channon: As the hon. Gentleman knows, taxation is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not for me. I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about the Merchant Shipping Bill measures. Yes, the fleet is slimmer, but it is more efficient, and company success should not necessarily be judged by the number of ships. The important point is to improve efficiency on sea and on land and open up new trade.
    Mr. Irvine: When did my right hon. Friend last receive representations about the size of the merchant fleet from the Ministry of Defence, and what was the nature of those representations?
    Mr. Channon: All letters from the Ministry of Defence are confidential, but I cannot recall one on that issue. I have already answered the question raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). If my hon. Friend is asking for taxation measures, I must point out that that is entirely a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    Transport Supplementary Grant
    Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by how much transport supplementary grant will be increased in 1988–89 vis à vis 1987–88.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: By £11 million—6 per cent.
    Mr. Jack: I note my hon. Friend's reply, but he will know of the concern in Lancashire over this year's transport supplementary grant application. Will he do all that he can in the financial year 1989–90 to ensure that the projects in the transport planning programme for Lancashire, which his Department has seen, are adequately funded, as they contain many much-needed road improvements, particularly in west Lancashire and my constituency of Fylde?
    Mr. Bottomley: I will do the best that I can for my hon. Friend, as I would for any other hon. Member. It is worth recognising that if everyone knew how well Lancashire did on occasion, I would face much more pressure from around the House.
    Mr. Flynn: Is the Minister aware that large lorries cause at least £200 million worth of damage annually to roads, and the effect of the increase in the weighings of lorries by 50 per cent. at ports, to which the Minister referred, will mean that only 1.5 per cent. of lorry movements inwards and outwards from Britain will be subject to weight checks? In view of the damage caused by lorries to our roads, is it not about time that the Government stopped being permissive and started getting tough?
    Mr. Bottomley: I shall try to bear that in mind when considering the transport supplementary grant next year.
    Mr. Soames: I thank my hon. Friend for the courtesy and help that he has always shown to West Sussex with regard to transport supplementary grant, but is he aware of the very serious problems that exist on the roads, particularly around Crawley and beyond, caused by the M25? Will he assure the House that he will do all that he can to confer the same benefits on my constituency as he intends to confer on the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack)?
    Mr. Bottomley: I congratulate my hon. Friend on managing to get me to visit Sussex to see the work that is
    10
    going on and the work that needs to be carried out. I hope to visit Sussex next week, but I am not sure whether I will be spending much time in his constituency.
    Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Fyfe to ask question 8.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): Mr. Speaker, would it be in order for me to answer question 7?
    Mr. Speaker: That would not be in order, because I have already notified the Government Whip that question 7 has been unstarred. We will have question 8.

    Commuter Services
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department has commissioned any studies on the economic impact of the provision of rail commuter services; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Mitchell: The Transport and Road Research Laboratory has published or collaborated in a number of national and international urban transport studies.
    Mrs. Fyfe: What did the Minister tell the Bank of England's City commuter services group, which reported to him that a survey of 5,250 employers revealed that more time was lost from work because of delays and cancellations than through sickness or any other cause?
    Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Lady is complaining about delays.
    Mr. Snape: There have been delays here.
    Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Lady has complained about delays and the reliability of trains. There is great interest at the moment in Network SouthEast, and reliability on these services has improved from 98.5 to 98.8 per cent. of trains running. Reliability and punctuality have improved. If the hon. Lady can give me a specific area of anxiety in Scotland, I shall write to her.
    Mr. Snape: This is not fair on the Government. Is the Minister aware that groups as diverse as the transport users' consultative committees, the Railway Development Society, Transport 2000, the Confederation of British Industry, the TUC—I wonder whether the Minister has found the right page for this answer yet—the Evening Standard commuter club and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission have complained recently about the "inadequacy, strain and danger" and overcrowding on British Rail services? Why is it that when Ministers find the right page, we receive only platitudes written by civil servants? Why has the chairman of the British Railways Board received a knighthood for being the most incompetent public servant in the country? Why is the ever-greedy road lobby the only group to be delighted by the incompetence of the hon. Gentleman and his fellow Ministers?
    Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his supplementary to question 7. New quality standards were set and accepted by British Rail last July. Punctuality, reliability, cleaning, overcrowding, inquiry delays and queueing for tickets are all covered by the standards. Those matters have been accepted by the chairman of British Rail. In the last six months of last year there was an improvement in punctuality and reliability on the Network SouthEast commuter services.
    Mr. Yeo: Is my hon. Friend aware that the commuter service from Manningtree is very important? Despite a rather erratic record of reliability, that service is used by an increasing number of my constituents and others elsewhere in East Anglia. Is he further aware that a great shock was caused when, following the construction of a large new car park at the station, British Rail announced its decision to eliminate most of the InterCity services? At the next meeting with British Rail's management, will my hon. Friend prevail upon it, if he can, to adopt more business-like practices and not to treat its customers as an inconvenience?
    Mr. Mitchell: I shall be seeing the sector director of Network SouthEast this evening, and I shall draw that point to his attention.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: If the Minister seriously wants to receive complaints from Scotland, is he prepared to accept dossiers from Scottish Members of Parliament, who can all cite extensive cases of the problems faced by our commuters? Does he accept that one of the major problems facing commuters in Scotland is the poor quality of the rolling stock and the fact that the upgrading, being so slow as to be ineffective, is hindering economic recovery?
    Mr. Mitchell: I am aware of the improvements that have occurred in ScotRail. If the hon. Lady is referring to section 20 services, she must refer to the passenger transport authority concerned.

    Motorway Repairs
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received about the speed with which motorway repairs are undertaken.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Various representations have been received which urge speedy completion of repairs. We aim to minimise delays by careful programming, improved traffic management and greater use of lane rental contracts which give an incentive for early completion.
    Mr. Knox: Will my hon. Friend explain why it appears to take so long to effect motorway repairs?
    Mr. Bottomley: It now takes between 30 and 40 per cent. less time than before lane rental was introduced. It is important to organise the work properly and to ensure that it is carried out efficiently and effectively. We are seeing substantial improvements. We are extending the use of lane rental contracts. We will not see such an improvement in time because lane rental is now being extended to some of the more complicated roadworks. I should like to see it on other roads as well as motorways.
    Mr. Grocott: Is the Minister aware that part of the M54 to Telford has been under repair almost since the day it was opened? The Minister let us know recently that some inquiries were taking place into long-term but permanent remedial work on the motorway. Can he tell us how those inquiries are proceeding?
    Mr. Bottomley: It would be simpler for me to write to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Holt: Does my hon. Friend accept that his reply is completely complacent? I ask him to come with me and drive on a Friday from London to my constituency. A
    12
    journey that used to take four and half hours now takes six and a half hours because of the miles and miles of coned-off A1 from Rotherham, north, which adds about one and a half to two hours to a journey. If the Minister had to pass through that in order to get to work, he would damn soon get rid of some of the cones.
    Mr. Bottomley: If I were going to my hon. Friend's constituency on a Friday night, I would go by train. It is worth remembering that some of the roadworks are to improve and expand the network, and I think that that is generally welcomed. It is also worth saying that if it had started in 1975, rather than in 1979, the roads would be in a much better state than they are now.

    Electrification
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of British Rail concerning the electrification of the rail network, and other matters; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Mitchell: My right hon. Friend last met the chairman of British Rail on 11 February. A variety of railway matters were discussed.
    Mr. Hughes: When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman, will the Minister ensure that he reminds him of the need for the early electrification of the London to south Wales main line? Will he also tell the chairman what provision the Government are making for our local authorities to ensure that they are able to provide for local halts, such as that in Magor in Gwent, which are so urgently needed?
    Mr. Mitchell: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is no. It is for British Rail to come forward with proposals for electrification where it considers that to be appropriate. I have had no application from British Rail in respect of that line.
    I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on the matter of smaller stations.
    Mr. Sackville: Will my hon. Friend say what progress has been made on assessing the possibilities for an improved rail service linking the Channel tunnel with Manchester and the north of England?
    Mr. Mitchell: British Rail is required by section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 to prepare a plan by the end of 1989 setting out its service proposals. It intends to consult widely in preparation for the plan, but it is too early yet to say exactly what it will entail.
    Mr. Snape: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the north-west group of Labour Members on their success in persuading British Rail not to take the nonsensical decision to abolish sleeper services to Manchester and Liverpool and to run empty sleeper trains in one direction? Does he not think that that shows the effectiveness of my hon. Friends from the north-west?
    Mr. Mitchell: It was not only Opposition Members who were responsible for making representations on that matter. I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman is now converted to approving of the chairman of British Rail and his activities.

    Rail Services (Quality)
    Mr. Haynes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of the Central Transport Consultative Committee to discuss the quality of rail services.
    Mr. David Mitchell: I met the chairman of the CTCC in September 1987 to discuss quality of service and other matters.
    Mr. Haynes: The Minister is not talking about quality; he is talking about inequality. Why is his Department cutting £3 million a day from financial support for British Rail when people are moaning and groaning all over the country? I want to know when we shall get our proper service from Mansfield and Ashfield to Nottingham to catch the London train. Is the Minister aware that I want to travel on that train, see the beautiful countryside in Nottinghamshire and read what the local papers are saying about me? What will he do about that?
    Mr. Mitchell: The key to the standards of service that the hon. Gentleman would like to see is investment. The Government have approved any worthwhile investment proposals put forward by British Rail. My in-tray is empty, and I shall be happy to have it filled again.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    "Stalker" (Prosecution)
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Attorney-General when he now expects to reach a decision "on whether to prosecute Mr. John Stalker under the Official Secrets Acts in respect of his book entitled "Stalker".
    The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 11 February to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden).
    Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Sir John Hermon, Chief Constable of Northern Ireland, said on television yesterday, and will say again today, that Mr. Stalker is thoroughly immature and that his book is a tissue of lies? Should not the public, therefore, treat Mr. Stalker and his book with the contempt that they deserve?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend expresses himself with characteristic robustness. I am not responsible for the views expressed by the Chief Constable or, indeed, by anybody else. Naturally, the Government deplore any breach of confidence of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. Archer: Does the Attorney-General agree that, in respect of decisions about prosecutions, he is accountable to this House, and only to this House? Although there may be difficulties about disclosing particular facts, does he agree that that accountability should be made a reality, either through a Select Committee or another acceptable channel? Has he directed his mind to that question, and would he care to make a statement?
    The Attorney-General: I am accountable to this House. That does not need to be made a reality. It is a reality.
    Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. and learned Friend know whether the book is a tissue of lies, or a breach of confidence? Surely it cannot be both.
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend speaks as though these things are mutually incompatible and as though the entire book, or any book, is wholly consistent in falling into one category or another. That is not always the case.
    Mr. Rees: Is the Attorney-General aware that I agree that, although the Stalker book obviously contravenes the Official Secrets Act 1911, he is right not to prosecute? Will he consider other circumstances in the background to the case in which it is alleged that, while the report was being undertaken, details were passed to a journalist in Manchester? Will he speak to the Northern Ireland Office and the Home Office and suggest that, in the light of his investigations and these worrying allegations, senior officers who are put in to investigate other police forces should be given instructions on how to carry out those investigations?
    The Attorney-General: The right hon. Gentleman speaks with much authority and experience. I shall undertake to ensure that his observations are referred to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and for the Home Department, who plainly have an interest in the matter.
    Mr. Fraser: Was one of the Attorney-General's considerations that it might have been in the public interest for the public to have the right to know Mr. Stalker's conclusions on his investigations in Northern Ireland? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman's conclusion not to prosecute was based on that consideration, will it apply similarly to any civil proceedings?
    The Attorney-General: It falls to me to take into account, in my criminal jurisdiction, all relevant circumstances. The hon. Gentleman has referred to one of them, but all of them have to be considered and a right and sound judgment has to be reached at the end. That I endeavour to do.

    Mr. Anthony Cavendish (Memoirs)
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Attorney-General what has been the cost hitherto of his actions against various publications in relation to Mr. Anthony Cavendish's memoirs.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): The total amount of costs expended to date in the actions, relating to the Cavendish memoirs, brought against The Sunday Times and The Observer, is £157.
    Mr. Dalyell: Wherein lies Mr. Cavendish's alleged breach of security?
    The Solicitor-General: Mr. Cavendish, as a former member of the security service, owes a lifelong duty of confidentiality. It is to establish and enforce that lifelong duty that the actions were brought.
    Mr. Dykes: Why is Mr. Cavendish being treated more lightly and generously than Mr. Peter Wright?
    The Solicitor-General: He has not been treated in any substantially different way as a matter of principle.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: If, in pursuing further action against Mr. Cavendish, consideration has to be given to

    15
    the expenditure which may be incurred, will consideration also be given to the abortive expenditure which has already been incurred in the Court of Session in Scotland?
    The Solicitor-General: Matters in Scotland have not yet reached their conclusion, and therefore it remains to be seen whether they are or are not abortive.
    Mr. Favell: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that a prerequisite of joining the secret service is the ability to keep a secret?
    The Solicitor-General: I agree.
    Mr. Fraser: Do I understand from the Solicitor-General's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that there was no breach of security — that there was only a breach of confidentiality?
    The Solicitor-General: The action was brought to enforce the lifelong duty of confidentiality.

    Alleged Government Subversion (Prosecutions)
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Attorney-General what recent consideration has been given to initiating prosecutions in relation to offences concerning alleged attempts to subvert the Government of Lord Wilson; and if he will make a statement.
    The Attorney-General: I refer the hon. Member to the Prime Minister's statement of 6 May 1987, in which she said that this matter had been investigated by the then director general of the security service; that no evidence or indication had been found of any plot or conspiracy against Lord Wilson by or within the security service; and that she did not propose to institute any other inquiry into the matter.
    Mr. Allen: The Attorney-General will be aware that allegations have been made by a senior former MI5 operative — Mr. Peter Wright — in his book "Spycatcher". Will he now stop his inactivity in this matter, because many people feel that by not having a further inquiry the right hon. and learned Gentleman is condoning the security service acting as the second team, or back stop, to the Conservative party?
    The Attorney-General: I do not go along with what the hon. Gentleman has said at all. In matters of this kind it is for the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide what, if any, action is to be taken in the face of any evidence, however presented, relating to the commission of any possible offence.
    Mr. Richard Shepherd: Are these not just about the most damaging allegations that can be made about Crown servants—that they tried to destabilise a legally elected Government? For public confidence, is not the best way forward to have an independent inquiry into these matters? We had Lord Franks' inquiry into the conduct of the Falklands war. Surely such an inquiry would lay to rest the public's anxiety, because people would then know that public servants are there to help, not undermine, the country's institutions.
    The Attorney-General: That point was made to the Prime Minister — no doubt it was made by my hon. Friend — when she made the statement to which I referred in my original reply. As the ultimate prosecuting
    16
    authority in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, I am not responsible for whether there should be public inquiries. The Prime Minister is, and she dealt with the matter fully and to the satisfaction of the House in the answer that she gave in 1987.

    Prosecution Policy
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss prosecution policy.
    The Attorney-General: Last Thursday morning.
    Mr. Winnick: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the immense harm done to Anglo-Irish relations by the statement that he made two weeks ago, in which he said that there would be no prosecution of RUC officers? While a later statement was made on the issue only last week, the fact remains that immense harm has been caused to Anglo-Irish relations. Would it not be wise to look again at the decision?
    The Attorney-General: This question relates not to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland, but to the DPP for England and Wales. The point raised by the hon. Gentleman by way of a supplementary question has no bearing on it, but if it had, my answer would be no.
    Mr. Gow: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the decision not to prosecute was made, not by him, but by the DPP for Northern Ireland?
    The Attorney-General: That is entirely true, as I made clear in my statement on 25 January.
    Mr. Cryer: Has the Attorney-General discussed with the Director of Public Prosecutions the possibility of prosecuting Chapman Pincher? All the information produced by Peter Wright in the book "Spycatcher" had been provided for Chapman Pincher. Is it not hypocritical of the Attorney-General to wax lyrical about a lifelong duty of confidentiality for members of MI5 when he knows full well that information has been provided to Chapman Pincher with the approval of the Government and Government officers? If Peter Wright and others are open to prosecution, should not Chapman Pincher, as the Government's mouthpiece, be subject to prosecution as well?
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that nearly a year ago I announced that the prosecution of Mr. Chapman Pincher would not be in conformity with the code for Crown prosecutors.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    International Fund for Agricultural Development
    Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is planning any meetings with officials from the International Fund for Agricultural Development to discuss investment policy; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Chris Patten): No, Sir.
    Mr. Smith: In view of the good track record of the International Fund for Agricultural Development in investing in agriculture for the benefit of those who need

    17
    it most — the rural poor — will the Minister give an undertaking that Britain will contribute to the next replenishment of IFAD funds? Will he consider making a larger contribution than we have made in the past, so that this country can give a lead in obtaining adequate resources for a viable level of work from this invaluable organisation?
    Mr. Patten: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, we have committed about £47 million so far to IFAD, including £7 million for the special programme for Africa. We are playing, and will continue to play, our full part in the negotiations about the next replenishment. I was pleased to be able to discuss that issue, among others, with the president of IFAD—who does a splended job—as recently as last November.

    Commonwealth Schools (Textbooks)
    Mr. Hannam: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to provide textbooks for schools in Commonwealth developing countries; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Chris Patten: This year we expect to spend about £1·3 million from the aid programme on textbooks for schools in developing Commonwealth countries. I am also considering support for some interesting proposals to provide textbooks no longer needed in British schools to developing countries.
    Mr. Hannam: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful reply. Can he tell us whether the Ranfurly library is involved in the project? Can he also give some details of which countries are being considered for assistance?
    Mr. Patten: The Ranfurly library service, which does such a magnificent job, is centrally involved in the proposals, which are being discussed with Rotary and the British Council. I very much hope that the scheme will get off the ground. If it does, it is intended to cover all developing Commonwealth countries.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Minister aware that, in addition to the provision of textbooks, many developing countries welcome the provision of audio-visual aids, and that the British Council, which is doing splendid work in many countries, would be able to assist if more resources were made available?
    Mr. Patten: Through the aid programme we have been making more resources available to the British Council, which has been doing a superb job in helping to manage our technical co-operation and training programme. Of course, audio-visual aids have an important part to play in education in developing countries, as do books, which is why we have increased spending on the books presentation programme.

    Public Service Pensions
    Mr. Stanbrook: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received asking the Government to rectify the anomaly whereby all public service pensioners receive credit for pre-appointment war service except where that public service was overseas.
    Mr. Chris Patten: Over the past few years there have been many representations from the Overseas Service
    18
    Pensioners Association and its members, primarily through constituency correspondence. The Government have also taken note of early-day motions tabled by my hon. Friend on this matter.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Is my hon. Friend aware that one early-day motion has been signed by no fewer than 245 right hon. and hon. Members, asking the Government to rectify this anomaly as soon as possible? Is it not a fact that the anomaly concerns only a small amount of money and that the number of people involved is small, and is getting smaller in the natural course of events, as most of them are elderly? Is it not a matter of honour for the Government to rectify this anomaly? Will my hon. Friend press for funds to enable him to do justice to these deserving people?
    Mr. Patten: I think I am right in saying that the matter relates to between 5,000 and 6,000 pensioners. The estimated cost — it is only an estimate — is about £6 million a year. We are keeping the matter under careful review. I am afraid that, so far, the Government have not felt able to accommodate this extra commitment. I am sorry to have to tell my hon. Friend that I cannot add anything substantive to what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs —the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar)—said in the debate last July.

    Ghana
    Ms. Mowlam: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what United Kingdom contribution will be made to the Ghanaian Government programme of action to mitigate the social costs of adjustment; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Chris Patten: The United Kingdom helped the Ghanaian Government to draw up their programme of action to mitigate the social costs of adjustment — PAMSCAD. Following the recent conference on the programme we shall be discussing with the Ghanaian Government ways in which we may use our substantial aid to Ghana to contribute to PAMSCAD's objectives.
    Ms. Mowlam: As the Minister has previously voiced his support for the debtor nations that adopt programmes like PAMSCAD to help the poor in their own countries, will he say whether, on such an important programme, the Government would consider extra cash outside the bilateral aid that he has mentioned?
    Mr. Patten: So far we have contributed almost £50 million for the support of the economic reform programme in Ghana. I envisage our making a further substantial commitment before too long. A health sector mission will visit Ghana in March, and I hope that some of its proposals on the development of primary health care and mother and child health will make a considerable contribution to PAMSCAD, which is so valuable and such a model for other countries.

    Bilateral Aid (Country Programmes)
    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in adopting the recommendations of the second report from the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on "Bi-Lateral Aid (Country Programmes)."
    Mr. Chris Patten: The Government welcomed the second report from the FAC, and its reply (Cm. 225) is a detailed response to the Committee's recommendations.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that it is unfortunate that the Department of Overseas Development has many millions of pounds at its disposal for the assistance of what are, in effect, industrial exports? Although some of those exports may have a development element, would it not be better if the sums spent for that purpose were deducted from the Pearson targets or any other percentage related specifically to overseas aid?
    Mr. Patten: I thought that our response to the FAC on that point was overwhelmingly convincing.

    Comic Relief
    Sir Russell Johnston: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government will match, pound for pound, the money raised by Comic Relief.
    Mr. Chris Patten: I should like to congratulate the organisers of Comic Relief on their magnificent effort. We attach great importance to the work of the voluntary agencies. That is why we have increased, by 50 per cent. to £9 million next year, the support of the joint funding scheme, which matches pound for pound the cost of agreed projects.
    Sir Russell Johnston: That is not exactly an answer, as the Minister knows.
    Mr. Skinner: Of course it is an answer, but it is a lousy one.
    Sir Russell Johnston: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) as always. Will the Minister specifically match pound for pound the amount raised by Comic Relief and give a Government commitment, which would surely have a positive effect on any future voluntary efforts, to match pound for pound the money raised for overseas aid in this way?
    Mr. Patten: If we were to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests— I accept that it might be a headline-making gimmick—it might limit the amount of money that we provide to the Horn of Africa. So far, taxpayers' generosity has exceeded that of those who contributed so magnificently to Comic Relief. As taxpayers, we have contributed almost £36 million to the relief operation in Ethiopia. When I was in Sudan recently I announced an extra £15 million worth of support for Sudan, in addition to the £10 million that we made available just before Christmas.
    Miss Lestor: I acknowledge the contribution that the Government have made to Ethiopia and other areas. Does
    20
    the Minister agree that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) was asking for extra money—not that the Government should merely match what has already been given—to stimulate interest in this country? Comic Relief—and the little effort that was made here—captured the imagination of thousands of people. Will the Minister reconsider his action, bearing in mind that such action from him, in addition to what is already being given, would help to keep people's minds on the problem and encourage them to give more generously?
    Mr. Patten: Of course I welcome the interest that was shown in the contributions to Comic Relief. I repeat that we shall be doing more in Ethiopia and Sudan. We shall be adding to what we have already given from a growing programme. We have increased by 50 per cent. our support for the pound-for-pound joint funding scheme with non-governmental organisations.

    Kampuchea
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received regarding the provision of development assistance for Kampuchea.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current level of United Kingdom overseas aid to Kampuchea; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Patten: I have received a number of representations. As I said on 1 February, in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), it would, in the Government's view, be wrong in principle to give development aid to the illegitimate and unrepresentative regime in Phnom Penh. We should nevertheless be prepared to consider providing humanitarian assistance in the context of any internationally organised relief effort. We provided nearly £1·5 million in 1987 to help Cambodians who have sought refuge in the camps along the Thai-Cambodian border.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Minister agree with the views given in the White Paper that was produced by Oxfam, specifically regarding Kampuchea? Does he agree that, if people are living in poverty and if there is infant mortality and problems of personal health, they are entitled to our aid and assistance without any regard to the political views that a minority in those countries might express?
    Mr. Patten: I do not agree with Oxfam on this matter. I agree with the 116 countries, in addition to the United Kingdom, which have endorsed the position taken by the United Nations General Assembly.

South of Scotland Electricity Board (Coal Imports)
3.32 pm
Mr. Martin O'Neill: 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 decision of the South of Scotland Electricity Board to allow tenders for the importation of coal."
It is a specific matter as it refers to the two coal-fired power stations in Scotland, at Cockenzie and Longannet.
It is important because the coal from the Lothian coal field—from the pits at Monktonhall and Bilston Glen—goes to Cockenzie. The Clackmannan coalfield, which is based largely in my constituency, with mines at Castlebridge and Solsgirth, is dedicated exclusively to the production of coal for Longannet power station. The latter is known as the Longannet complex, and all the coal output is dedicated to the station. It is taken there by conveyor belt from the underground face to the furnaces.
The importation of coal from abroad, which is purchased on the spot market at prices which may, in the short term, be lower than those charged by British Coal, will result in the closure of the Scottish coalfield, the loss of 4,000 jobs directly and many thousands indirectly.
The matter is urgent because the closing date for tenders is today. Last Thursday my hon. Friends and I met the Minister of State, Scottish Office, but he refused to intervene.
The Scottish Office is responsible for the operation of the SSEB. The buck stops at the Secretary of State for Scotland. That is why he should be called to account today, before the electricity board makes a decision that would have dire consequences for the Scottish economy and is due more to the rush to privatisation and the personal aggrandisement of a few than for the protection of the consumer, the continuity or supply or the jobs of my constituents and those of my hon. Friends.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the decision by the South of Scotland Electricity Board to seek tenders for the importation of coal and its consequences on the Scottish coalmining industry."
I listened with care 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 and I cannot, therefore, submit this application to the House. No doubt he will find other ways of bringing it to our attention.

Master of the Rolls
3.35 pm
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you could give the House some advice on the rules in "Erskine May" about hon. Members criticising judges. The matter arises out of an early-day motion, of which you will be aware, in the names of myself and certain of my hon. Friends in relation to the Master of the Rolls, Sir John Donaldson, after his judgment in the "Spycatcher" case. I subsequently wrote to the Prime Minister about this matter, and then, to my surprise, I received a letter from Sir John Donaldson. I had copied my letter to the Prime Minister to Sir John Donaldson. He wrote to me and told me that he had written to the Prime Minister. Sir John Donaldson, the Master of the Rolls, has gone outside what he said in the court and, as it were, entered the affray.
As I understand the rules of the House, we may attack judges only by way of an early-day motion, but if a judge were to go outside the courts —for example, if a judge were to launch a criticism of a Member of Parliament in relation to his judgment in a newspaper article — the emeritus professor of law at the London School of Economics, John Griffiths, says that that might well place a totally different complexion on things.
I ask you to look at the matter, Mr. Speaker, to see whether, in view of the fact that the Master of the Rolls, Sir John Donaldson, has gone outside the courts by writing to myself and the Prime Minister about his judgment, we may criticise him on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is quite right to say that it is not open to hon. Members to criticise a judge, except by an early-day motion. He has correctly done that. What he alleges —the possibility of a newspaper article —is pure speculation at the moment. I have no knowledge of that. I shall look carefully at what the hon. Member said.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: (Bolsover): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In reply to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) you mentioned the possibility of letters, and so on. It is not a question of speculation.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the House did not misunderstand me. I was referring to the possibility of an article in the newspapers.
Mr. Skinner: That is exactly the point that I was making. It is not a possibility, and it is not speculation.
The Master of the Rolls, Sir John Donaldson, has brought the matter into the public domain. He wants to have his cake and eat it. We are not allowed to criticise judges on the Floor of the House, because they are not able to criticise Members of Parliament except in a court of law. If judges have the right to attack Members of Parliament outside the courts, we should have the right to attack judges in the House. That is the point that my hon. Friend made. It was not about a speculative effort. It is about the fact that Sir John Donaldson has put it in writing and put it in the public domain.
Mr. Speaker: As I understand it, if I heard the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr.

23
Sedgemore) correctly, the letter was written to the Prime Minister. It is not a question of its being in the public domain.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. What about retired judges, or judges who have gone to the House of Lords? For example, last night I watched Lord Denning in a television programme, "Rough Justice". He said that it is unfortunate that some innocent people are in prison—it is just too bad. Am I not allowed to criticise Lord Denning for making such an idiotic statement? If innocent people are in prison, they should be released. If "Rough Justice". or any other television programme, helps that end, surely it is important for democracy and the rule of law.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows the rules about that, too. Peers—Lord Denning is a peer—may be criticised only by motion.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), did you not make it clear that the letter was not in the public domain? Surely a Prime Minister's letter written, as I understand it, to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) is in the public domain. This is not exactly a peripheral matter, as some hon. Members seem to think. The Master of the Rolls has gone on record as saying that certain actions that the rest of us might consider illegal are legal in relation to the security services. That is a highly controversial statement, and to say that his letter is not in the public domain is giving the benefit of the doubt away from Parliament.
You, Mr. Speaker, have been the protector of Parliament. Do you not think that, in this context, you should see your role as the protector of the House of Commons against a Master of the Rolls who is doing what no other Master of the Rolls has done in the history of the office?
Mr. Speaker: I have already said that I will look into the matter, and I will do so.
Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It cannot be correct, as you
24
said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), that we cannot criticise judges when they make such extraordinary statements. Yesterday Lord Denning appeared on a television programme and engaged in an argument. Any hon. Member should be entitled to make any comment that he wishes about Lord Denning or any other judge.
Secondly, is it not true that, whether they are judges or not, it is perfectly open to Members of this House to criticise members of another place? They must do it in certain ways, but they are entitled to do so.
Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, will you make a statement on the subject to the House tomorrow? Lord Donaldson's judgment was an exceptional event. He said that something that is happening now is beyond the law and he called on Parliament to regularise it. Something is happening that is a breach of the law and he is inviting Parliament to change it. That is not a judge acting as a judge. It is a judge acting as a politician and saying, "We want the matter to be decided by Parliament."
Will you make a statement on those three matters to the House tomorrow? If the rulings were upheld, it would be a grave infringement of the rights of debate in the House.
Mr. Speaker: I have already said that 1 will look into the matter, and I will do that. As for Lord Denning, the question is whether he was acting in his official capacity, or in another capacity, but I shall look into that matter, too.

European Court of Justice
3.42 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Moving from judges in the United Kingdom to judges elsewhere, you will be aware that the next business on the Order Paper relates to the appointment of judges to the European Court and its extension. Can you advise me whether, under Standing Order No. 102, if more than 20 hon. Members stand in their places, the debate on that document will be on the Floor of the House and will not be referred to a Standing Committee, as the Government wish?
Mr. Speaker: What the hon. Gentleman says is correct, but I am informed that that motion will not be moved.

Local Government Finance Bill (Allocation of Time)
3.43 pm
Sir Peter Emery rose—
Mr. Speaker: May I anticipate the hon. Gentleman? I have not selected the amendment in the names of the hon. Gentleman and several other right hon. and hon. Members.
Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for your statement. However, in procedure, is there not a great deal of difference between debating a matter and testing the support of the House for a matter? On this matter of principle, how can the House reach a decision? On the Education Reform Bill, an exactly similar amendment, which you agreed was in order and which was tabled by members of the previous Procedure Committee, was not selected.
This amendment, which tries to regulate the position, is supported not only by my inferior self, but by a previous Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), a previous leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), the deputy leader of the Liberal party, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and other distinguished right hon. and hon. Members. The amendment has not been selected. How, therefore, on this most important matter of timetabling, which is a limitation of Members' rights—there cannot be anything much more important than that—can we ensure that the principle set out in the amendment is not just debatable —we realise that it can be debated—but can be forced to a Division? Surely it is not otiose that we force the Government to a particular point rather than accept their assurances or intentions. Must that not make Members look to you, Mr. Speaker, to ensure their rights against the might of the Government? How can we do that if we cannot vote on the matter?
Mr. Speaker: I imagine that every Business Committee considers a Bill with a view to ensuring that every part of it is debated. That is the object of the Business Committee.
Sir Peter Emery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we have that as an official ruling in "Erskine May"? At present that is not the case, and it would be a most important new step if the Business Committee always sought to ensure that every part of the Bill was debated.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter to be included in "Erskine May".
3.46 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

Local Government Finance Bill (Allocation of Time)

  Committee
  1. —(1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 24th March 1988.
  (2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 24th March may continue until Ten p.m., whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 25th March 1988.

  Report and Third Reading
  2. —(1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third
  26
  Reading of the Bill shall be completed in four allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten p.m. on the last of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
  (2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
  (3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 80 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
  (4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

  Procedure in Standing Committee
  3. —(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
  (2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member 'who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
  4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

  Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
  5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
  Dilatory Motions
  6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
  Motion under Standing Order No. 20: extra time
  7. If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
  Private business
  8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

  Conclusion of proceedings
  9. —(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new

  27
  Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

  (c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is made by a Member of the Government;

  (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  (3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

  (a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

  (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  (4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  Supplemental orders
  10. —(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  (2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

  Saving
  11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

  (a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or

  (b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

  Recommittal
  12. —(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of recommittal.
  (2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

  Interpretation
  13. In this Order—
  "allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has
  28
  been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
  "the Bill" means the Local Government Finance Bill; "Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
  "Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.
  The House will be well aware of the importance of the Local Government Finance Bill to which this motion seeks to apply a timetable. The objectives of the Bill are well known. They are, first, to abolish the injustices of the present domestic rating system; secondly, to make local authorities more accountable and responsive to their electors; and, thirdly, to provide much needed protection for business ratepayers. The Bill will achieve these objectives through the replacement of domestic rates by the fairer community charge, the introduction of a simpler and more stable system of paying revenue support grants to local authorities, and the establishment of a uniform national business rate.
  This is not the time or the occasion to go into the details of this measure, but I will make some general comments. The present system of local government finance, where 20 million of the 35 million electorate make no direct contribution to the cost of local services, is not an equitable one, and can lead to irresponsible local authorities of the type that we have so regrettably seen in many of the areas controlled by the Labour party. Moreover, half of local revenue is raised from businesses which are defenceless against exploitation by these same authorities.
  Our proposed community charge will introduce the accountability which is currently lacking. All electors, not just a minority, in a local authority's area will have a close personal and financial interest in their council's performance, and will therefore be more concerned that necessary services are provided efficiently. Local democracy should be much strengthened by the Bill.
  Mr. Simon Huges: Will the Leader of the House say how businesses will have a greater say after the legislation, given that they will have absolutely no influence on their local rate? Their only influence will be on the Government, and Governments can be just as arbitrary and unlistening as local government.
  Mr. Wakeham: Local businesses have no vote and no great influence— [Interruption.] In some areas they may do, and in some areas they do not. We believe that businesses will have more influence through a uniform rate applied throughout the country, which will bring much needed relief to some parts.
  Even the Labour party admits that local democracy—
  Dr. John Cunningham: The Leader of the House does not seem to understand what the Bill is doing. At present, every local authority has a statutory obligation to discuss the implications of its local budget with the local business community. That obligation is wholly removed by the legislation and there will be no requirement on local authorities to discuss matters with the local business community.
  Mr. Wakeham: If some local authorities had exercised their statutory responsibilities and consulted and listened,

  29
  we might not have got into the difficulty in which we now are. The hon. Gentleman goes right to the heart of the problem. The Labour party admits that local government democracy will be strengthened by the Bill. I quote from the Labour pamphlet, "Labour Councils in the Cold", issued by the Labour Co-ordinating Committee. It states that one of the effects of the community charge would be that
  "when the local council wants to carry out a programme of service expansion, local people will no longer be cushioned by increased business rates and rate support grant. They will want to know that increased expenditure is well spent".
  They will indeed. It is such a pity that the Labour party seems to regard that as a drawback.
  Our proposals for replacing domestic rates have long been public knowledge. More than two years ago, the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government", published in January 1986, set out the broad policy now embodied in the Bill. There was widespread consultation on the Green Paper and more than 1,200 responses were received during the 10 months that followed. Separate documents were subsequently published on the community charge, non-domestic rating, the new grant system and the mechanism for appeals.
  Moreover, we put our proposals explicitly to the country. Our manifesto for the 1987 general election stated:
  "we will legislate in the first Session of the new Parliament to abolish the unfair domestic rating system and replace rates with a fairer community charge."
  That commitment was the culmination of a long search for a replacement for domestic rates and was subsequently endorsed in resounding fashion by the electorate. This undertaking was renewed in the Queen's Speech at the opening of Parliament, and the proposals were approved by the House when it gave the Bill a Second Reading by 340 votes to 253.
  The House had the opportunity on Second Reading to discuss the principle of the Bill at considerable length, for about 12 hours in all. Since then, more than 72 hours have been spent in Committee in detailed consideration of the community charge alone. So far the Committee has discussed 16 clauses and one schedule, plus five new clauses and a new schedule. More than nine hours were spent debating the 21 non-Government amendments to clause 1, which runs to only five lines. Sixty-seven non-Government amendments were tabled dealing with exemptions from the community charge, set out in clause 2, with 15 hours of debate.
  I do not deny that the Bill deserves careful consideration, but so far only 21 clauses, in 72 hours, have received such careful attention.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Can the Leader of the House tell us why it was more than 100 hours before the guillotine was introduced on the Scottish legislation in the last Parliament, and longer before it was introduced on the Rates Bill, of which only six clauses had been debated before the guillotine was introduced? Why is this the earliest guillotine introduced for a local government finance measure, after less time for consideration? Is it because the Government cannot bear to listen to the arguments?
  Mr. Wakeham: That is the substance of my speech. Bringing forward the guillotine earlier will ensure that the Bill in total is better discussed in Committee, which is exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir
  30
  P. Emery), my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), my predecessor as Leader of the House, and other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen want.
  Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: How many Government amendments have we discussed in Committee? I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge the Government's inefficiency in drafting the Bill.
  Mr. Wakeham: I have no doubt that there were plenty of Government amendments. I have no doubt that they were wise amendments, based on having listened to the debate and having taken notice of it. That shows a proper consideration of the Bill in Committee, which is something that we all want. I hope that I shall set a timetable that will allow further Government amendments, should they be necessary, and time for Opposition amendments, which may not be quite as helpful.
  I fear that we do not have available the 400 hours in Committee that would be necessary at the pace that we ale going to deal with the remaining 116 clauses and 11 schedules to the Bill. I do not believe that such time would be necessary even if it were available—first, because the essence of our proposals is in part I of the Bill and has already been the subject of wide-ranging debates, and secondly, because I am not wholly convinced that the best possible use has been made of the hours spent in Committee debate. I would not be alone in the House in questioning the worth of discussing eight amendments from the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) which sought merely to amend the name of the community charge, particularly when the hon. Gentleman admitted that their acceptance would not alter his attitude to the Bill.
  We have to ensure that there is opportunity for due and structured consideration of all the provisions in the later parts of the Bill. They deal with complex and important issues, such as the revenue support grant and non-domestic rates, which are an integral part of the reform of local government finance. I am concerned today, as I was in bringing forward a timetable motion for the Education Reform Bill, to provide sufficient time for all the issues in the Bill to be properly discussed by this House before it goes to another place. That is the intention of the timetable motion.
  The motion would require the Committee to complete its consideration by 10 pm on 24 March. If the Committee continues to sit on the same basis as it has been doing at present, there would be time for more than 80 hours further consideration in Committee. As is customary, it would be for the Business Sub-Committee, which has the important task of allocating the amount of time for discussion of each part of the Bill within the total days available, to decide whether the present pattern of sittings should be maintained or might sensibly be increased. In this context, the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and other distinguished hon. Members, although not selected, will be a helpful reminder to the Business Sub-Committee of what is expected of it.
  In addition to the Standing Committee's consideration, a further four days on the Floor of the House have been allocated to the Bill's remaining stages. The Business Committee would provide for this time to be used

  31
  appropriately to allow discussion of all the most important issues. No Leader of the House can consistently introduce timetable motions, each of which is the most generous for 20 years. However, I hope that hon. Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton, who are concerned to see proper discussion of all a Bill's provisions in this House, will agree that the generous amount of time provided and the stage at which it is brought forward put this motion in the same class as the one that the House approved three weeks ago for the Education Reform Bill.
  This is not
  "a timetable which ends real debate, with backbench independence stifled" —
  to quote a leader last week in a newspaper that has recently proved its devotion to the alliance by splitting itself in half. This is not the old-fashioned guillotine intended abruptly to cut debate, such as we saw 16 times in fewer than three years when the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) was Leader of the House. It is, rather, a carefully planned timetable motion and I am moving it early enough in the Committee stage to ensure that all parts of the Bill receive parliamentary scrutiny. I am sure that the House would not wish another place to be able to complain that this had not been done.
  In this case, there is another reason for bringing forward arrangements expediting and structuring discussion of the Bill. It is the task that faces local authorities in implementing it. In little more than 12 months, local authorities will be preparing to canvass their communities for the community charges register and will be getting their registration, billing and collection systems in place. To do this effectively, they need sufficient time for planning.
  Mr. David Winnick: As the Bill is apparently the flagship of this Administration, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why his right hon. Friends the Members for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), his hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) and his immediate predecessor as Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), are vigorously opposed to the poll tax? As those are just a few of the many Conservative Members who are opposed in principle to the poll tax, how on earth can the country be convinced that this measure is right? Is it surprising that the latest opinion poll shows that over 60 per cent. of people are opposed to the poll tax?
  Mr. Wakeham: I noticed that the hon. Gentleman just picked a few names out of a hat in any old fashion. These proposals were very much part of our election manifesto and have been endorsed in the House by a substantial majority. I do not see present any of my right hon. Friends that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. [Interruption.] I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) is present. The vote will show that many hon. Members are in favour of the timetable motion.
  We are doing what we can to disseminate information to local authorities, as early as possible, but they cannot implement the charge without the certainty that comes from the legislation and regulations made under it. Many details remain to be prescribed in regulations, and we cannot do that until the legislation has passed through the parliamentary processes. The longer this is delayed, the
  32
  more difficult we make the task of the local authority practitioners who have the responsibility to their community of making the system work. If time were lost needlessly in Parliament, the local authorities' task would be made unnecessarily onerous.
  I commend the motion to the House, in the belief that it provides for measured consideration of the Local Government Finance Bill in the context of the timing constraints within the parliamentary framework, and those outside which I have just outlined. If I may borrow a phrase from the Labour Members:
  "the country is crying out for change".
  Local electors and local businesses are crying out for a change from an unfair system of local revenue raising, to a more equitable one that will increase local government accountability and strengthen local democracy. The Bill will give them such a change, and the motion will ensure that the remaining clauses of the Bill will he adequately considered and that the community charge can be implemented, as planned, in two years' time.
  4 pm
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: The House could be forgiven for acknowledging that there is a certain predictability about timetable debates. The Leader of the House explains exactly why debate on a crucial issue should be restricted. It is the Opposition's job to explain exactly why debate should go on for considerably longer. It is my job to explain why there should be far more consideration of the Bill, although the House might understand why some Opposition Members adopt a certain ambivalent attitude when we consider what the public at large think about the poll tax.
  The Times on 21 January this year stated:
  "Tories alarmed at growing opposition to the poll tax".
  The figures show that well over two thirds of the electorate are concerned about the effect of a poll tax. Even better, last week, The Independent mentioned
  "Strong opposition to poll tax from voters in marginals."
  I have to declare an interest. I have a long-standing personal interest in the activities of voters in key marginals. I am delighted to see that, according to the poll in the Local Government Chronicle, a substantial majority of voters in key marginals are wholly opposed to the poll tax, identifying it as an unfair tax. Indeed, many Conservative Members fully appreciate the unfairness of that tax.
  The Secretary of State for The Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to one of the conclusions of that particular poll, which stated:
  "The Conservatives still hold a clear lead in these key areas."
  Mr. Grocott: It refers to Conservative-held marginals. As the Secretary of State will appreciate, 4 per cent. of the electorate were willing to change their vote. It may not be many to him, but it is extremely important to some hon. Members.
  I could not have put it better than the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) who said on Second Reading—this is what we shall be telling the country in the months and years ahead—
  "Responsibility for the poll tax will now be targeted precisely and unavoidably at the Government who introduced that tax. That tax will be known as a Tory tax."—[Official Report, 16 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 1141.]

  33
  We shall make sure that no one remains in any doubt about that.
  It might be in the interest of the Labour party to give the Government some assistance. When the poll tax proposals slip through people's doors, that will be good news for us. However, not for the first time, I ask my hon. Friends to put the public interest before the party's interest and ensure that the Bill is thoroughly scrutinised. If that means some delay, so be it.
  There is no doubt about what will be that impact of the poll tax when it happens, whether or not we accept the guillotine motion. There has not been sufficient time to debate the Bill. As has already been explained, only 16 clauses have been debated and we have reached only the first schedule to the Bill.
  It should be remembered that there is no precedent for such a Bill in England and Wales, although one exists in Scotland. I am sure that if some of the Conservative Members form Scotland who voted for the guillotine on the Scottish Bill just over a year ago were present today, they would advise their hon. Friends whether there should be another guillotine.
  The tax is unique in its scale. Never before has a new tax been introduced which will directly affect 30 million of our fellow citizens. Never before has there been on such a scale a new tax that is unrelated to people's ability to pay or to the quality of services that they receive. Never before has a tax been introduced which is redistributive not in the way that most 20th-century economists understand the term, but in a notion unique to the Tories under Thatcherism—not through a tax system which helps the poor, but through a tax system which redistributes the burden from those best able to pay to those least able to pay. That is a novel concept. Never before has a tax been introduced which will cost twice as much to collect as the system which it replaces.
  The poll tax is unique and requires unique parliamentary consideration. It is also unique in the unanimity of opposition to it. It would not be a bad parliamentary principle if the consideration that the House gives to legislation was at least related to the degree of opposition to it in the country. The opposition to the poll tax is unanimous.
  Only last Wednesday, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) asked the Secretary of State for the Environment
  "how many letters he has received from members of the public (a) in support of the community charge and (b) opposed to the community charge."
  I should have thought that that was a fairly simple question which might have a fairly simple answer. However, the Secretary of State replied:
  "A summary of 1,271 responses received … was placed in the Library … Since then my Department has received a large number of letters commenting on specific aspects of our proposals and requesting further information." —[Official Report, 17 February 1988; Vol. 127, c. 960.]
  I bet that he has received further comments and proposals, but he did not give a straight answer to a straight question. The Secretary of State has had an expensive education—I was going to say "a good education". I am sure that he is capable of giving a straight answer to a straight question, but we have not heard how many people are against the poll tax, in terms of the representations received, and how many people are in favour of it.
  Everyone is against the poll tax. On a free and secret ballot, I am sure that many Conservative Members would
  34
  vote against it. All the professionals in local government are against it. In repeated survey of local government finance since the war the poll tax has had hardly a mention as a serious way of financing local government. It appears by a fluke at this very late stage.
  Again I quote the right hon. Member for Henley, who on Second Reading said:
  "by the time that consultation period on the Green Paper was over, the idea of a poll tax had no friends. It was dismissed by the Cabinet with hardly a backward glance. I wish that I could come to the House and say that I won the argument, but in truth there was no argument."—[Official Report, 16 December 1987; Vol. 1432, c. 1138–39.]
  That sums up the view of the right hon. Gentleman, which is shared by many Tories.
  Mr. Robin Squire: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that that followed the Layfield commission, which is broadly accepted by both sides of the House as the most definitive analysis of local government finance which did not find it worth considering?
  Mr. Grocott: The hon. Gentleman knows that repeatedly, from the Allen committee in the 1960s through the Layfield report, the Green Paper and the report of the Select Committee on the Environment, that proposal has not received any serious consideration. Least of all has it received serious consideration from those at the sharp end—those who will implement it. In my area of The Wrekin, the district council officers have prepared a report on the costs and problems of the implementation of the poll tax, which says:
  "On the assumption that 97,000 adults will be liable to pay poll tax, then an additional 760,000 payments could be received, an increase of 370 per cent. It is envisaged that the increase in workload, due to increases in volume and likely problems with collection, will be massive."
  That is one district council's assessment of what will be involved.
  Mr. Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the Select Committee on the Environment, on which the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) and I sit, when there was a clear Tory majority in 1981, there was no vote in favour of a poll tax? Does my hon. Friend agree that if there were a free vote in the Cabinet, only two would be in favour of the poll tax — that fanatic, the Prime Minister, and the Secretary of State?
  Mr. Grocott: Strange things happen in Cabinets where Prime Ministers are surrounded by sycophants, and that is one of the problems that we face.
  No one, particularly those at the sharp end who will have to deliver the system, is in favour of the poll tax. The opposition to it is near unanimous, and the Bill requires parliamentary scrutiny in view of that fact.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Grocott: No, I will not.
  There is another reason why it is essential that we debate this proposition more than we would any normal legislative proposal. This measure, rightly called a poll tax, is a threat to our democratic process. That is not true of most taxes. I do not like VAT, but I do not think for a moment that it is a threat to democracy. Can anyone seriously doubt that the imposition of the poll tax will be a serious disincentive to many of our citizens from registering their right to vote in the normal way? We already know that electoral registers are used for many

  35
  strange purposes. They get sold to finance companies, discount agencies, insurance companies and the rest. Who can doubt that the poll tax man will get his hands on the electoral register? It is inevitable.
  I am delighted that the public are in no doubt about what kind of tax this is. In the opinion poll to which I referred earlier, carried out by NOP Market Research Ltd.— a reputable firm — and published in the Local Government Chronicle, 77 per cent. of those questioned referred to the tax as a poll tax. Only 2 per cent.—they must have been brainwashed by the Tories in some way — called it a community charge. Overwhelmingly, the public understand it for what it is. It is a tax on the right to vote. It will be forever known as the poll tax, however much the Leader of the House may resent the fact that we tabled amendments about a change to that name.
  So far, no Government spokesman has explained the difference between a tax and a charge. Why do they persist in calling it a community charge? Is it just the doctrine that one expects from a Ministry of Truth trying to pretend that a tax is not a tax? By any definition, this is a tax. I dread the Tory propaganda at the next general election. It may say that since the Government have replaced rates with a community charge, there has been a substantial reduction in taxation.
  If the Government are honest about calling taxes charges, why do they not introduce a "pay-as-you-earn income charge" or a "value added charge" as a way to pretend that tax does not exist? We should beware if the Government persist in playing with words in this way. The Prime Minister told us in the general election campaign that the Government would not introduce VAT on children's clothes or on food. I know that some of my hon. Friends do not believe that, but even if we take the Prime Minister's words at face value, she did not say anything about the imposition of a value added charge. Perhaps we can look forward to that.
  Such a proposal could come only from a Government composed of a Prime Minister surrounded by sycophants who do not even dare to tell her when all of them know that what is being proposed is absurd. This proposal is the product of a Government who think that they can walk on water, but who deserve to sink without trace. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will insist that the poll tax should get the full parliamentary treatment that it deserves, and that is why I hope they will vote against the guillotine motion.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. John Biffen: These occasions always have a casual and friendly character about them, and this afternoon is no departure from that tradition. Although the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) made a speech of some length, and eventually worked himself up to the enthusiasm appropriate for a Second Reading debate, he did not identify the guillotine as the most onerous and most undemocratic imposition upon the House as it deals with one of the most unacceptable Bills that has ever confronted it.
  I was pleased that the hon. Member approached the matter in that spirit, because we already know that political hotheads north of the Tweed are talking about non-payment of this tax. Therefore, we are entitled to hear from the Opposition Front Bench right away that such
  36
  action will have their condemnation, and if they are not prepared to do it formally, the mild and civilised way in which that speech was delivered was a clear sign that they will distance themselves from the activists in Scotland who are proposing to boycott the tax.
  I am pleased to have had the chance to sign the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and I appreciate the order in which the debate will proceed. I hope that on some future occasion we can so arrange our affairs that the amendment, which is in order and has been so adjudged, may be part of our debate in more tangible terms than merely being a matter for discussion.
  I shall comment on the terms of the guillotine motion in general. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on bringing in this guillotine earlier, and on providing rather more time, than has traditionally been the case. This is a welcome evolution, and I hope that it will point to a final conclusion and to the end being sought by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton. That will be to the advantage of the House when dealing with these matters.
  In particular, we require all the time that has been mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, because the time already spent has been devoted substantially to the form of the community charge. It has not yet resulted in any major alteration, and that is an oversight which the House must remedy. As ever, in these matters, I travel with some hope, because my right hon. Friend prayed in aid as the precedent for his action today what had been done in respect of the Education Reform Bill. The House will know that, within the last few days, amendments to that Bill have been tabled—amendments of the most far-reaching character, which will have a substantial consequence on the provision for universities.
  That is an encouragement to those on both sides of the House who believe that if one decides—it is a decision which I endorsed and voted for on Second Reading—that it is better, in local authority revenue matters, to have a tax on persons than a tax on property, how one elaborates that judgment, that choice and that decision is a matter which belongs properly to Parliament. It is a sector in which the Executive should never be afraid or unwilling to make major adjustments. We have the clear and reasonable example of the Education Reform Bill to inspire us. I say that in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who can speak with far more authority than I about the content of the Local Government Finance Bill. Our debate is not so much about the content of the legislation as about the modalities within which the content can be debated.
  There is no doubt that many people—I am among them—believe that the idea of a graduated community charge based on Inland Revenue records has more equity and practicability than the proposal before the House. Of course the hon. Member for The Wrekin was right to dwell for a moment on the effects of taxation on the political processes. It was valid for him to claim that certain taxes have become part and parcel of a controversy which has run over time. That tax issue exemplified social and economic judgments that were identified with the political participants. I dare say that that fate will await this tax. It will be several years before its final implication and execution are perceived by the public.
  When considering these issues, we are not trying to deal with a short-term battle of consequences in the first half

  37
  of a parliamentary Session. I remember the great part that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, who now sit on the Treasury Bench, played in the campaign against the selective employment tax. That campaign was conducted with great skill and eventually that tax foundered in derision and resentment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment may believe that he is the captain on the bridge of the flagship, but that ship may turn out to be the Titanic.
  4.21 pm
  Mr. Michael Foot: The earlier part of the comments made by the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) almost led us to believe that he was supporting the Government's action. He spoke in such a persuasive and emollient manner that, for a moment, even one or two of his former colleagues on the Government Front Bench were deceived. However, those of us who know the right hon. Member, know him better than that.
  I can summarise the right hon. Gentleman's speech even more abruptly than he summarised it himself. He was trying to tell the Government Front Bench that only a bunch of blithering idiots could have assembled on a Thursday morning and pushed through such a measure as this in the hope that they could carry it on to the statute book. Nothing so demeaning to the House of Commons or so insulting to the electorate would ever have occurred while the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North was a member of that Cabinet. The sooner they put it right the better. That is roughly what the right hon. Gentleman was saying, although he did not use exactly those words.
  Mr. Ridley: The right hon. Gentleman does my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) a disservice. He was a member of that Cabinet.
  Mr. Foot: When was the decision taken to carry through the poll tax? No doubt the Secretary of State listened to the discussion, although we have been told that there was hardly any discussion about it in Cabinet. If the Secretary of State will reveal secrets about what happened, I dare say that the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North will be eager to respond to protect his reputation. Indeed, no doubt many other dissenting members of that Cabinet would want the right to put their points of view. If the Secretary of State is so eager to jump to the Dispatch Box to claim that the decision was unanimous, the full truth should he revealed, instead of the partial truth that we have come to expect from the Secretary of State, particularly when he is defending a very weak case, as he is now.
  I hope that the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North will not leave the Chamber, because I am about to refer to that part of his speech that appeared to support the Government. The right hon. Gentleman began with some quietening references to the whole question of procedure. He commended the procedure motion on the grounds that it did something much earlier than is normally the case with guillotine motions. He is quite right about the timetable arrangements under which these proposals are normally brought forward.
  It is the case that this motion, like the previous guillotine motion that the Leader of the House introduced a fortnight ago, is being introduced earlier than usual in the Session. That is one of the reasons why I am opposed
  38
  to the motion. The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) has long advocated making the procedure of these discussions cut and dried. He has advocated timetable motions from the beginning of the proceedings on every Bill. He believes that this is the proper way in which these matters should proceed. I am sorry to see that the hon. Member for Honiton appears to have the support of the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North today. He also had the right hon. Gentleman's support a fortnight ago. The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North carries great influence in the House, and I am sorry to see him joining in this campaign.
  I signed the hon. Member for Honiton's motion, not because I am in favour of the general proposition, but because I believe that anything is better than anything that this Government ever propose. Therefore, when they propose such a timetable motion, naturally an amendment of this type would limit it and would have some value if it were carried by the House. I am sorry that we will not have the opportunity to vote on the amendment. It would at least have helped to ensure that proper time was allocated to these different subjects under the normal procedure.
  I do not believe that it would be good for the House or for the scrutiny of Bills if there were timetable motions on every Bill. I was opposed to the motion when the Chairman brought it from the Select Committee on Procedure and I strongly supported my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) on that occasion. Although I have been known to favour guillotine motions—I shall deal with that in a moment as it has been referred to, just as I shall deal with the Leader of the House's attitude—I am strongly opposed to this motion.
  I have participated in more guillotine debates than has any other hon. Member. Indeed, I have participated in these debates since 1945. Sometimes I have been in favour of them, and sometimes not. but there has never been a guillotine motion that could be justified in the way that the Leader of the House is trying to justify this one.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that when he introduced five guillotine motions in one day he used almost exactly the same form or words as those used by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall saying:
  "it is a particular illustration of the malice, folly and absurdity into which right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition side have got themselves that when we exercise those ancient rights it is cheating and when they exercise them it is freedom."? — [Official Report, 20 July 1976; Vol. 915, c.1543.]
  Mr. Foot: What I said then was extraordinarily apposite. I would not dream of withdrawing a word. If the hon. Gentleman looks back into history he will see that, as usual, I was stating the case with the utmost moderation. I was trying to restrain my language, while putting my opponents in their place.
  Of course I was going to refer to the day when I introduced five guillotine motions. I would not dream of apologising for that. I would be willing to give way to the Leader of the House in a moment. Indeed, I will give way to him now, as he appears eager to speak.
  It is 22 February today, and the previous guillotine motion was introduced, I believe, on 1 February. There is a great difference between introducing such motions on 1

  39
  February, 10 February or 11 February and introducing them when I introduced mine. If the Leader of the House knows so much about this, perhaps he will tell the House when I introduced those motions. When was it? He is shaking his head. He rebuked me last week and said that I did not know what I was talking about. Before doing that he should have looked up the date.
  Those five guillotine motions were introduced on 20 July. That is quite late in the Session. If we had not had the guillotine motions, all those five measures would have been destroyed. There is not the slightest doubt about that. They were five good measures and, as I have said, if it had not been for the guillotine motions, those measures would never have reached the statute book.
  Mr. Wakeham: I was taught that fine words butter no parsnips. When the right hon. Gentleman was Leader of the House, he was responsible for 16 guillotine motions in three years. I shall not go into detail, because he can do that. However, in none of those motions did he allow the four days for Report and Third Reading that are contained in this timetable motion. Also, none of them had more than 10 days for the completion of the Standing Committee proceedings, and there are 20 in this motion.
  Mr. Foot: I must introduce the Leader of the House to some of these matters. He must try to grasp the point. If one introduces a guillotine motion in July, it is very different from introducing it in January or February.
  If one starts to introduce timetable motions in January or February, one is moving towards the principle, advocated by the hon. Member for Honiton, of saying, "Let us timetable all measures almost from the beginning." Therefore, by subterfuge, the Leader of the House is effectively saying that we will have timetable motions on every Bill but that it will not be done by putting to the House a general motion that upholds the doctrine of the hon. Member for Honiton. They are trying to sneak it through and are attempting to distract attention by spreading great misconceptions about what happened on 20 July 1976, even though they did not have the foggiest notion of the date.
  Mr. Wakeham: When the right hon. Gentleman was treating the House to a confidential recollection of those days, I thought that he might have told the House that for quite a number of weeks before that date the then Labour Government did not have a majority and were waiting for a couple of by-election results. Therefore, I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman's arguments are as convincing as he makes out.
  Mr. Foot: I can tell the Leader of the House that I recollect the time much better than he does. I had much better reason for ensuring that the calculations were correct. Some people have said that arithmetic is not always my strongest point. However, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I can count the numbers in the House. There were some quite big commotions before that time.
  The critical issue is that Governments have the right, in certain circumstances, to introduce timetable motions. It was right in 1976, and I justified the motions at the time. We had a narrow majority, but that was part of the argument. If we had not introduced those timetable
  40
  motions, all those measures would have fallen. I would be happy to discuss with the House what wonderful measures they were, although I am not sure that that would be in order.
  One of those measures was the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, the purpose of which was to protect jobs. One concerned the dock labour scheme, which again was to protect jobs. Another was an excellent Education Bill, which was supported by a potential member of the Social Democratic party. There was another excellent measure to abolish the tied house for the first time in our history. So good was it that not even this Government have dared to seek to repeal it. I hesitate to mention it, because when they see what wonderful measures are still on the statute book, thanks to the then Labour Government and the guillotine motions, they might be tempted to come forward with measures to remove them.
  The problem of the tied house was solved by that Bill. It was a problem that had given rise to great injustices over many generations. It was solved partly because we were determined that the Bill would not be wrecked by opposition in the House or by opposition in the House of Lords. However, I do not want to say anything against the House of Lords now, because it might have a convenient role to play on this squalid measure that the Government are trying to push through by this even more squalid motion.
  I hope that the Leader of the House will not come forward again quoting that famous day of 20 July. If he does, I hope that he will get his facts right. I know what a forceful figure he is in the Cabinet and how he bangs on the table and says, "We will not have that." I hope that at the next Cabinet meeting he will say, "No more timetable motions before 20 July." If the right hon. Gentleman will do that, he will do a service to the House as well as change the reputation that he may have about how he tells the Government to deal with the business.
  One of the real troubles in the House today is that the Leader of the House has had great experience in the House, but in another capacity. Once a boy scout, always a boy scout, and once a Chief Whip, always a Chief Whip. Chief Whips should be elevated, but only with circumspection. Look what happened to a former Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). He got into trouble when he got out of his depth. That should be taken to heart by the Leader of the House, and he should be careful before he moves on to higher altitudes. He should be a little more careful in future and he should read up on history.
  The right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewksbury (Mr. Ridley) must have a smattering of history from the public school that he attended. I should have thought that at least one of the Ministers would have said. "You cannot have a poll tax. We cannot introduce a measure that brought about the peasants' revolt." Do Government Members not know about the peasants' revolt? Most of them are well-heeled landlords, so they should know what happened. In that revolt, the Government were defeated. They thought that they could get away with a poll tax. The history is all on the record. If there had been any properly educated members of the Cabinet, that history should have been read out when the measure was first introduced.
  An excellent pamphlet on this subject was published. A famous poet laureate wrote a book about it. He said:

  41
  "It is not to be wondered that this poll tax should contribute to heighten the discontents of the common people, seeing the heavy taxes … had been an intolerable burden on them, not lying so much on the nobility and the gentry as on their copyholders and tenants, who repined at these exactions, as impositions upon them without their own consent."
  The poll tax was withdrawn and defeated, and the same will happen to this one. The Prime Minister should look at that example. Not even Richard II was fool enough to say that the poll tax was his flagship, which he wished to protect and sail into port. Everyone should know that what happened to him was partly a result of the poll tax that he introduced.
  This is a serious matter. One part of the country —Scotland—has had a better chance than the others of discussing the poll tax. It has had a better chance partly because of the way in which the Bill affecting Scotland was introduced. I am not quite sure why the system should be tried out on the Scots in that way. I am not sure which member of the Cabinet said, "Let us see how they take it north of the border. We can try it on them, and if it works we will try it on the others." I cannot understand why they decided to try it on the Scots; nor can the Scots themselves understand why.
  As even the Leader of the House should know, at the last general election the poll tax was repudiated throughout the country, as was the Conservative party in Scotland. If the Government proceed to force the poll tax down the throats of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom they will do great injury to the unity of the United Kingdom. There is great hostility to the tax in Scotland. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman goes up there, but I can assure him that were he to do so he would get a hot reception. The preservation of the unity of the United Kingdom should be a predominant interest and, on that ground alone, the tax should be withdrawn.
  The poll tax will eventually lead to the defeat of the Government. Whether it leads to their defeat before or after an election rests with them, but if a sufficient number of intelligent Members oppose the tax and exercise their vote tonight, even if we do not win, if the majority is cut to 10 or 15, the effect in the other place will be considerable. That includes the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North, whose advice on the matter, as on so many others, was no doubt unwisely rejected by the Cabinet. The poll tax should be defeated before it is brought to the country. By doing its duty tonight, and achieving that result, the House would be doing a service to the nation.
  4.41 pm
  Sir Peter Emery: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) or, as I always remember him, for Ebbw Vale. He was in Ebbw Valean form in his speech. It was delightful in its charm and historical references, but in many ways it was entirely out of touch with what is happening in the country and with what will happen in the future when the Bill is enacted.
  I do not wish to do as some other speakers have done and conduct a Second Reading debate yet again on the community charge. We are dealing with a timetable motion. I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House when he said that sufficient time would be provided for due and structural consideration of
  42
  all parts of the Bill. That is part of my contention and what the Procedure Committee has been pressing on the House for many years.
  The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent was doing me a disservice when he suggested that I had always advocated a timetable motion since the introduction of the legislation. I did not suggest that, nor did the Procedure Committee, and it would be wrong for the House to have that impression.
  Mr. Michael Colvin: I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), as a member of the Procedure Committee, does not wish to advocate that, but that is precisely what we have had on the Bill. Proceedings in Committee were a great pleasure because of the free-going debate between both sides, instead of Conservative Members sitting like stuffed ducks on the Back Benches. The debate has been good-natured from the start. In the early stages of the proceedings, it was rumoured that there would be a guillotine. As a result, hon. Members felt encouraged to participate in a debate which otherwise would not take place in Committee.
  Sir Peter Emery: I am delighted to hear the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) about the pleasures of serving on the Committee. However, nine amendments were tabled in respect of the title of the Bill, so that scarcely seems to represent free-ranging and massive debate about the Bill and associated procedures. We have spent 72 hours on the bill and debated only 21 clauses. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, if that pace of jovial exchange continues, we shall need up to 400 hours. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is right, but I see no reason to contradict him.
  Mr. Leigh: Our debates in Committee have not always been so jovial. On one occasion, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) spoke for one hour and 40 minutes on one amendment and repeated himself frequently. I sympathise with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). Does he agree that, if the motion is passed and 150 hours of debate are granted, the Bill will have been more thoroughly debated than virtually any other Bill before Parliament?
  Sir Peter Emery: The Bill will certainly have as long as almost any other Bill before Parliament, but I am not certain whether it will be as adequately debated as I should have wished.
  The Procedure Committee is not suggesting that, rather than have the present type of timetable motion — the standard motion, with dates and times altered, but otherwise exactly the same as other such motions for a number of years — we should introduce a massive controlling element with all items in the Bill guillotined from the start. The Committee made a helpful suggestion which played very much into the House's way of dealing with legislation.
  The only new aspect was that a Business Sub-Committee should be set up, consisting of the members of the Standing Committee, when the Standing Committee was appointed. After 12½ hours of debate, that Standing Committee, presumably with two Whips as members, should consider whether reasonable and proper progress

  43
  was being made. If so, that would be the end of the matter. However, if one or other side believed that that was not so, the matter should be decided when the date for the Bill to be reported to the House was known. When that date was known, the Bill should be pushed through with help from the usual channels.
  The recommendation of the Procedure Committee clearly states:
  "The Business Sub-committee of the Standing Committee shall allocate the time so as to ensure that all parts of the Bill can be adequately scrutinised and every substantive proposal of the Bill considered."
  Those are the same words as are in the amendment that has not been selected. That does not necessarily mean that the Committee would debate every clause or amendment, but the major and substantive matters would be debated in Committee.
  If, after 25 hours, the usual channels were unable to use their influence to obtain proper progress, the business sub-committee will act, as it will in respect of this timetable motion, to set times for debate of the different parts of the Bill in Committee and in the House. We would not, therefore, have to waste another half-day on another timetable motion.
  We have already wasted half a day on a timetable motion on the Education Reform Bill, and there is a great possibility that there will be other timetable motions before the end of the Session. Time on the Floor of the House should be spent on matters which are far more important than a rerun of Second Reading, which is basically what we have had today so far. Time could be much better spent debating major issues which hon. Members want debated and for which the Leader of the House can never find time.
  When I first came to the House in the 1960s, a timetable motion created great political divisions. Both sides of the House were full, normal relations between the usual channels were all but broken and we debated the motion for a whole day. It was a matter of high dudgeon. All that has passed. The past 20 years have altered everything, and today we have a rather anodyne debate which gets us nowhere and allows the Government to do what we ought to be able to arrange to do through Standing Orders, as suggested by the Procedure Committee. We could then save time on the Floor of the House and ensure that every contentious issue and important aspect of the Bill was properly debated. That is what the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent wants. Indeed, it appears to be what every right hon. and hon. Member wants.
  We ought, towards the end of the 20th century, to begin to have a reasonable command of how we use our time on the Floor of the House and in Committee. The sooner we do that, the better it will be for legislation and the more likely it is that the public will know that every aspect of a Bill has been debated properly.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House hopes that all the issues will be debated properly, but there is no assurance that that will happen. I am sorry that we cannot vote on the amendment which I have tabled. With such an assurance, the Committee might have to sit on Wednesdays and Fridays. The House owes it to the people who have to put up with legislation to ensure that every
  44
  clause is debated before a Bill comes back to the House on Report. I believe that, sooner or later, we shall have to adopt that view.
  4.52 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I agree with the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and support his amendment, which has been endorsed by two former Leaders of the House — the right hon. Members for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) and for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has signed the amendment, and my colleagues and I believe that it would be the right way in which to proceed. Because, however, there will not be ordered debate of the Bill and because of the Bill's nature, I strongly oppose the motion.
  Nobody has yet mentioned the salient fact that the Bill has 131 clauses and 12 schedules and that we have spent just over 72 hours in Committee spread over 16 sittings. In an intervention, I asked the Leader of the House to make two obvious comparisons. The first was the equivalent Bill for Scotland, for which the guillotine motion was brought in after 101 hours of debate and after 20 of the 35 clauses had been considered. The second was with the Rates Act 1984, which was guillotined after 18 hours of debate when six of the 19 clauses had been debated.
  The Leader of the House said that this time the motion is being introduced earlier so that things can be ordered earlier and all the arguments and issues can be considered properly. Observers of the Committee do not leave feeling that the Government have considered either the arguments or the issues. One of the most amazing statements of all was made on Second Reading, when the Under-Secretary of State said:
  "My right hon. Friend made it clear early in the debate that the Committee will be delighted to look at any alternative proposals. I am sure that all alternative proposals will be totally unacceptable." — [Official Report. 16 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 1184.]
  If that is not an example of closing the mind before hearing the arguments, I do not know what is.
  Mr. Irvine Patnick: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of the 72 hours have been spent by his hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), who I notice is absent, in what I would call a perambulation around the course and that, at times, he has gone virtually backwards?
  Mr. Hughes: I am glad to put on record what my colleagues have achieved. The hon. Gentleman's assertion is untrue, because the one concession that the Government have made has been in response to an amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie). [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] I can provide the column number of the report. It was the only explicit concession that the Minister made, and concerned discretionary rather than compulsory punishment of defaulters by imprisonment. The event was well publicised.
  We should consider which parties have moved amendments. Plaid Cymru has moved four, the Liberals have moved 15, Labour has moved 47 and the Government have moved no fewer than 49. It is the Government, whose Bill this is, who have taken up most of the Committee's time and effort. They did not get the Bill drafted properly in the first place, so they are having

  45
  to change definitions and introduce amendments and schedules to put the Bill in some presentable shape. If the Government had presented the Committee with a properly drafted Bill, they might have had a better case for asking for a timetable motion to be passed.
  Mr. Patnick: How many of the Government's amendments have been moved formally?
  Mr. Hughes: Quite a lot, because they were consequential. A Bill which is properly prepared, however, should not have to be amended by the Government in the first few sittings. Exactly the same can be said about other Bills. On the Committee presently considering the Housing Bill, the Minister concedes that not even all the ideas have been thought through, let alone the clauses.
  We are presented with a fundamental change in the financing of local government. The Bill is long, but the Government are curbing debate much earlier than has been true of other comparable measures. The Government are rewriting the Bill as they go along, and they are not listening to the Opposition's arguments. Indeed, they are not even listening to their own Back Benchers.
  When discussing the Government's failure to accept any amendments, the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North used a wonderful phrase—he said that it must be an oversight. It is not an oversight. The Government have clearly determined to accept no substantive amendments. The true motive of the Secretary of State has been revealed in Committee:
  "We do not want one group of people making no contribution while others have to pay for everything. We want everybody to feel that they are making their contribution, however small. That is a move away from a two-class society of payers and takers, to a society where we all pay a little according to our means."
  If we all paid according to our means, that might be all right. But, although the means of the Secretary of State and his Cabinet colleagues, for instance, are somewhat greater than the means of others, it is Cabinet members who are among those who on all the evidence will benefit the most.
  I wonder whether the use of the word "takers" does not tell us something as well. Is it perhaps not true that the Secretary of State views pensioners who rely on the social services to stay alive as "takers", irrespective of the fact that in the past they may have given their all? Does that not apply to any other local services that are of a redistributive nature? The clear implication of the phrase is that the Bill will redistribute resources to the wealthy from the poor. That is why the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North warned the Government that this might be their Titanic.
  It is also clearly a party political measure, and the guillotine is a party political proposal. The Leader of the House said that the Bill was intended to deal with the fact that people vote for the wrong party — he actually mentioned the Labour party — because voters do not have to pay. People often vote for the Labour party, or for my party, in areas of the country where they cannot pay. They do so because they know that we are the only people likely to be able to defend them against a Government who seem to think that they and their views and their circumstances do not matter.
  It is not as if the Government had been putting forward intellectually wonderful and convincing arguments to detain the Committee, either. On 26 January, the Secretary of State put the following pearl before the Opposition,
  46
  whom he possibly regarded as swine, and certainly regards as an unnecessary inconvenience. I get the impression that he regards Parliament as an inconvenience in general, and would like to be able to legislate by decree. Happily, however, after only three Thatcher terms, we are not there yet. The Secretary of State said:
  "The Opposition also seem to equate the ability to pay with the concept of fairness, as if it were automatic. I do not believe that it is automatic. No one has said that it is unfair that everyone should pay the same vehicle excise duty or the same television licence fee because they are not related to the ability to pay."
  The right hon. Gentleman may not have realised that people have a choice as to whether they have a car or a television. They do not have to have those items. But no one has a choice about whether to pay the poll tax. People will have to pay it even if they do not have a home, or do not have an income. Under clause 2, which defines a main or principal residence, the Government have said that it is not even necessary to have a house. Dossers, tramps, vagrants and travellers have no incomes and no homes, but, say the Government, "We shall make them pay." People have not been deceived by the present Administration, and this is their crowning glory.
  I accept that, in comparison with the time allowed for other Bills, four days for Report and Third Reading is generous, and to be welcomed. My objection, and that of my colleagues, is the Government seeking to limit so early, and so substantially, the time given for proper consideration of such a momentous Bill. We had considerably more time to consider the Bill that abolished six metropolitan county councils and the Greater London council, although it did not affect nearly so many people.
  Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman said that he would deal with this point, but I do not think that he has done so. If the timetable motion is passed, we shall have debated the Bill for 150 hours in Committee. I am not aware of many Bills that have been debated in Committee for that long. By passing the motion at this early stage, we shall ensure that all the clauses are properly debated.
  Mr. Hughes: I think that I have answered that point, but I shall repeat my answer. I accept that a Bill should be debated in such a way that all parts of it are debated reasonably. My quibble is not with that notion, but with the total length of time provided. For a Bill of this importance, length and complexity, we are not being allowed enough time. I cart draw all the comparisons that are available in the record of parliamentary debate on the subject.
  The Secretary of State, on 26 January—obviously, it was a fateful day—also said:
  "Support for the present rating system is practically zero." —[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 26 January 1988; c. 96–98.]
  According to Public Service and Local Government of October 1987, an opinion poll revealed that 26 per cent. of respondents supported the current system of rates, while only 14 per cent. supported the community charge. If support for the present rating system is "practically zero", support for the community charge is considerably less.
  The Local Government Chronicle of 29 January had figures to similar effect:
  "Of all those questioned, 45 per cent. would choose to continue with the present rates system and only 21 per cent. would prefer poll tax … The only section of the population which favours poll tax over rates is the better off in social class AB, who will in general gain from a flat rate tax."

  47
  Guess which social class the members of the Cabinet, to a person, belong to!
  Despite the Government amendments, the Bill still contains anomalies. Prisoners on remand will be liable for the tax; convicted prisoners will not. Students will receive 80 per cent. relief as of right; student nurses will not. The Bill will legislate against those who care most for the most vulnerable in the community. Already, people are not registering to vote. Today's edition of The Times reports that the electoral register in Kensington and Chelsea contains nearly 5,500 fewer names, and the paper says:
  "officials estimate that 3,500 of these have been deterred from registering because they believe the electoral roll will be used to enforce the poll tax."
  In Glasgow, where preparations for the poll tax are already advanced, 11,000 names have this year disappeared from the register, against an annual drop in previous years of 3,000 to 5,000.
  The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent was right to refer to the only other experience that we have had in England of a poll tax. A book by someone called Marie Louise Bruce tells us:
  "By 1381 the peasants had a ready-made bonfire of discontents that only awaited a spark to ignite and this came in the form of a new poll-tax … it was impossibly onerous. Nevertheless revolt did not follow at once, the peasants tried a more peaceful means of evasion … They lied about the number of adults in their families".
  They revolted all right, but first they tried to escape an unfair charge.
  Mr. Roger King: There were no rebates.
  Mr. Hughes: No, there were not. But, even without communication or a proper Opposition, they saw through the system of an autocratic Government.
  Mr. Tim Devlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: No; I want to reach the end of my speech. The fact that the poll tax is not connected to people's ability to pay—except in the case of the very poorest—makes it not just a tax on people's votes, but a tax on their very lives. That is objectionable, but entirely consistent with the views of a Government who value property above people. They are willing to tax people who have little or nothing, but leave untaxed the property of those who have something or much.
  Unlike many campaigns of opposition from politicians, the growing opposition to the poll tax will eventually win the day. Unusually, there is already an all-party fleet preparing to set sail to defeat the so-called flagship of the third Thatcher attack — "Flagship Futility", as The Guardian has called it. "Flagship Folly" would be a better title. The Opposition's job—and in the coming year no political job will be more nationally important in Scotland, England or Wales—is to ensure that as many members as possible of all parties and of none who, unlike the present Government, believe in the community and understand the unfairness of the charge, are the vanguard of the great people's rebellion to axe this new poll tax as they axed the last.
  Any Government can ignore the community to an extent. But if they limit discussion and steamroller a Bill through the House without listening to the Opposition or
  48
  conceding to any better arguments from either side, they risk the realisation in the other place that this legislation is a foolish way to proceed and the determination of the public outside to make their views abundantly clear.
  The Leader of the House began his speech by saying that the country is crying out for change. If the Government are determined not to change this legislation, they will certainly pay for the consequences.
  5.9 pm
  Sir George Young: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) can take this as a compliment if he wishes, but I am sure that the Committee would not have made the progress that it has made if he had been deliberating with us.
  There is an element of ritual about these debates, as has been said. As far as I can see, the speeches are kept on word processors and remain the same as the parties change. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House might usefully have deleted the standard sentence, "The country is crying out for change," when he spoke about this piece of legislation, because all the evidence that I have seen shows that the more the country learns about the Bill, the less it is crying out for the change.
  Having voted against the Second Reading of the Bill, I do not propose to accelerate its passage by voting for the guillotine. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) and my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) have said, the House does not yet have the right procedure for deliberating the Committee stages of a Bill, and I do not propose to vote against the guillotine. Four days on Report seem a generous Government move, and it is only right to put that on the record.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey asked why the Bill was being guillotined at an earlier stage than the equivalent Scottish legislation. I can only assume that the English get round the course slightly more quickly than the Scots. It takes quite a long time to debate a Bill with 139 clauses and 12 schedules and with 44 Members on the Standing Committee. I can accept the mathematical inexorability of the fact that if we continued with our present rate of progress we would be forced at the end of July either to give up our summer recess or to proceed with the legislation.
  The more I listen in Standing Committee, the more I think that the Government were right four years ago to dismiss the poll tax. This does not seem a sensible place at which to pitch one's tent and resist, in that this is a procedural motion to enable the Government to have the discussion completed within a reasonable time. It seems sensible on Report, when there are four days for debate, for one to reopen some of the important debates in Committee which have not been satisfactorily resolved.
  I do not believe that there has been any filibustering. The more contentious parts of the legislation have been debated in the first two months and, although one hon. Member may have spoken for an hour and 20 minutes, he spoke only once, or perhaps twice, and that should not necessarily he held against him.
  Mr. Patnick: Twice.
  Sir George Young: It may have been twice, but, if one adds the various contributions, one speech of an hour and 20 minutes may be less than several interventions. One or

  49
  two of the interventions by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) from a sedentary position cost the Government no few minutes.
  Within the rather harsh constraints of policy, Ministers have been as helpful and as patient as they can be in dealing with the debates. That they are not able to give way on the fundamental inequity of the Bill is not entirely surprising. It is important in the remaining days to discuss clause 18, to which I think we shall come later this week, which deals with the system of rebates. If the Government are to criticise alternative methods of raising local government finance in some detail, it is necessary for them to be more explicit about the details of their scheme as they may affect the poor.
  So far there has been substantial progress in Standing Committee. Two of my hon. Friends—one of whom is in his place — who voted for Second Reading have several times spoken against some of the Bill's important principles and on occasions voted against or abstained. The Government have stopped referring to the Bill as a community charge and now refer to it fairly often as a tax. At the heart of the argument against the Bill is the claim that it is not a charge, but a tax. I think that five times last Thursday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State called it a tax. The moment it is defined as a tax, the question of how it is financed produces some very different answers compared with when one talks about a charge.
  The debate in Committee has been basically between equity and accountability. Accountability has become slightly blurred at the edges. The impact of the rate support grant on the community charge will be important. If that is not right, community charge payers can legitimately point to the Government as being responsible for the high charge in their area. Within weeks, the Government changed their perception of how much the local authority in my borough of Ealing should spend. Rate capping now reduces the rates by 25 per cent. rather than 42 per cent. If those are the shifts in the Government's perception of what a local authority should spend, they will have a big impact on the community charge. How will the Government be able to argue that the level of community charge reflects local extravagance when there can he such a variation in rate support grant?
  Accountability has also become blurred in the debates about households in which the husband and the wife are out of work. The husband will get the benefit, which includes his wife's contribution, and will have to pay on behalf of both. The Government have argued, without success, that many more people will be brought into the community charge net but, in practice, because of the way in which household finances are constructed, there will be little impact.
  Some people have been written out of the script. The little widow and the four wage earners who live next door to her have not appeared for many episodes. There is widespread concern about what has happened to them. I suspect that they are not appearing any more because it emerged in another part of our debate that the community charge was not that important a factor because the bulk of local government would continue to be funded through the rate support grant, which was funded by progressive taxation, and the better off would therefore pay far more than the less well-off. Of course, that argument applied directly to the four wage earners who, it transpired, were paying far more than the little old lady next door and, as a result, all five have been written out of the script.
  50
  If the little old lady and the four wage earners have been written out of the script, a new character has emerged—the gardener from Selly Oak. He is almost sitting there in the Committee with us. The gardener from Selly Oak, in some pithy and rather earthy comments, asked why he should pay as much as the visibly prosperous Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark). In a nutshell, those earthy comments, by the gardener from either Selly Oak or Solihull, summarised public perception of the Bill.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: If my hon. Friend is referring, not only to the procedure, but to some of the substance of the debate, I imagine that it is in order to ask him a question. In my constituency, in what is locally called millionaires' row, the equivalent of the local tax would fall by two thirds for the average householder, whereas in the poorest road, where people would not be subject to a rebate system, charges for an average household would increase fourfold. Is that a new system that we can commend with enthusiasm to the waiting public?
  Sir George Young: The opinion polls give my hon. Friend the answer that he seeks from me. I am grateful to him for his support for the fundamental argument that the community charge is unfair and should be related to ability to pay. In the remaining stages of the Committee 1 hope that the Government will explain why revaluation is unthinkable for domestic taxpayers, causing widespread turbulence, but is perfectly all right for the non-domestic sector, which has just woken up to the impact of the policy on it and is writing at some length to the Standing Committee.
  A procedural motion is not the best time to pitch one's tent and do battle. More, or less, time in Standing Committee will not determine the measure's future. That will be determined by votes on the Floor of the House, by debate in the country as a whole and by the debates in another place. The guillotine motion injects a note of certainty about the dates and timing, and I welcome that and reserve my fire for the battle next month.
  5.19 pm
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: I wish to speak against the timetable motion.
  When the Leader of the House was making the business statement last week, he should have said not that the Bill was to be made the subject of a guillotine but that it was to be axed and that it was being rejected altogether. If he had taken note and cognisance of the clear public opposition to the Bill, he would have had second thoughts. He should remember that there is considerable opposition within the Conservative party to this proposal. Those Conservative Members recognise the implications of the Bill and have serious doubts about the direction in which we shall be moving if this legislation is enacted.
  On Second Reading there were many abstentions, with some Conservative Back Benchers voting against the Bill. That rebellion would have been far greater but for the fact that those holding office within the Government and those hoping to hold office did not dare to show their true feelings.
  The Government claim, as did the Leader of the House, that this measure had the support of the public at the general election in June. It would be true to say that the

  51
  Tory party gave the poll tax legislation a very low profile. The Government did not make a major election issue out of it. Much of the public were not fully aware of the intentions of this legislation. However, opinion polls have shown that the more they become aware of it the more they oppose it. It must be remembered that if the votes in England and Wales for those parties who clearly opposed this legislation at the last election had been added together it would have shown that there were more people opposed to the poll tax than were in favour of it.
  With regard to Scotland, which is at a more advanced stage in this legislation, the message of the voters was very clear and the Conservative party lost many seats. We have often talked about losers and gainers as a result of this legislation, and it is important that we should have done so. To some degree, this point ties in with the intervention of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). The plain fact of the matter is that the majority of losers will be those who can least afford to lose. That must be a serious criticism of the legislation. A large number of the gainers will be those who least need to gain.
  The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) said that changes should be made to the Bill as it is debated to improve its principle, and, to some degree, to rectify the problems that I have already mentioned. I know that it is of serious concern to him that the Bill does not take into account the ability to pay. That point was also made by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) and other Conservative Members.
  I fear that the Government will not take cognisance of those matters during the remainder of the Committee stage. There has been no sign that they accept that problems should be rectified. I believe that the Secretary of State is 100 per cent. committed to the legislation, although former Secretaries of State have opposed it. It has been said that, prior to 1983, the Environment Select Committee expressed opposition to a community charge. It has also been said that the Layfield committee opposed this proposal. Many people who are experienced in the financing of local government have said that it is not the way to rectify the problems with local government finance.
  I accept that there are faults and anomalies in the present rating system, and that criticisms can be made of it, but to introduce a system that is worse and less fair is not the way to solve the problems involved. The Government should recognise that fact and axe the Bill.
  We should have more time to debate the important, fundamental matters involved in this legislation. Many Government amendments have been tabled, which shows that the Bill was badly drafted. It was said earlier that many of those amendments were moved formally, but it must be remembered that clause 3 has been almost completely rewritten. From being a very short clause in the Bill, it is now a very long one. In addition, an extremely long new clause 4 has been introduced by the Government. The Government have made very important changes to the Bill.
  We are aware that the Government originally intended to incorporate provisions in the Bill to enable prison sentences to be passed on those who do not pay the poll tax. Such a measure was not included in the Bill when it was first produced, and at present it is not included. However, when the Minister replied to a debate last week, he made it clear that on Report the Government intended
  52
  to introduce an amendment enabling a prison sentence to be passed on those who do not pay their poll tax. He made it clear that, unlike other people in prison, they will not avoid their liability to evade the poll tax just because they have been sent to prison for not paying.
  By proposing those amendments, the Government have shown that they recognise the complications and difficulties that will exist in collecting the poll tax. It will be difficult to collect and there will be difficulties in compiling the register. The register will change every day, so it will need a mass of workers in town halls throughout the country to keep it up to date as people move from one constituency to another.
  The Minister said that registration officers will be able to check with other local authority departments on people who have applied for library cards or grants or who are receiving housing benefit, and check against the electoral register. The Government say that it is not a tax on votes, and I accept that, but the wording that they use makes it clear that if one registers to vote one will become immediately liable to pay the poll tax. However, one does not have to vote to become liable for the tax, because the registration officer will use the electoral roll to ensure that the names shown on it are on the community charge register.
  We have debated not only many Government amendments but, at length, two very important principles. The first was the ability to pay; we shall return to that issue during debates on later clauses. I have no doubt that many Conservative Members want to debate that subject at length because there is clear concern about the ability to pay. The other matter that we attempted to deal with was exemptions; we shall want to debate that issue again later in Committee. They are both extremely important issues, and if the ability to pay is not taken into account one must try to give, in a wider way, exemptions to those who cannot afford to pay, if we are to put any sense into this proposal.
  As yet, we have not debated the uniform business rate. It is clear that the CBI holds a different view from the Government on this part of the Bill. The National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd. has written to hon. Members expressing its concern and worries about the implications of the UBR on small businesses if the Bill is not amended.
  Many issues must be debated at length. I fail to see that the Bill, even if it is amended, will be good. Although the Secretary of State is committed to the Bill, the Minister, with his legal background, is like a barrister who must defend a case in which he knows that the accused man or woman is guilty of murder, but he deals effectively with his brief, hopes to do well with it, and hopes for better things to come. He will be remembered as the Minister who forced iniquitous and unfair taxation on the people of this country.
  If Conservative Members believe that the legislation is wrong and want to see it amended or defeated, I hope that they will support the Opposition and vote against the motion. It is important that the Bill is debated for as long as possible in Committee to try to ensure that, if the Government are determined to use their majority to force it through, regardless of the implications and the fact that it may cost them the next general election, we secure as many amendments as possible to make it work in the best way to minimise damage. We are talking about minimising the damage to society, business and the people who cannot

  53
  afford to pay taxation. That is why we need more time to debate the Bill and why it is important that the motion is defeated.
  5.31 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I am grateful for the chance to make a brief contribution to the debate. I hope that the Leader of the House will now consider whether we should have a debate about the procedures of the House, particularly to have a close look at the way in which we handle these timetable motions.
  Along with most of my hon. Friends on the Committee, I have sat relatively quietly listening to the arguments by Opposition Members. From the outset it has been clear that Opposition Members are impaled on the horns of a somewhat uncomfortable dilemma. Indeed, the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) made that point clear when he opened for the Opposition today. Opposition Members are by no means clear whether to shoot the fox or merely graze it as it passes on its way.
  If the Bill really is the great Satan, as some Opposition Members tell us, if it is the Achilles heel of the Conservative party, no doubt, in their hearts, Opposition Members wish it good fortune as an important and welcome landmark for a longed-for return to Government Benches, and would not wish to detain the Bill overlong in Committee. That is why we have heard some weasel words today on the guillotine motion. That is also why I would not seek to accuse the Opposition of filibustering in Committee.
  It is true that we have spent a considerable time—perhaps over-long — in Committee discussing the position in respect of the names of dead people on the register. In addition, great time was taken in discussing the name of the Bill — time that could perhaps have been spent on more important issues. After all, by any other name, a rose is still a rose. We have gone in detail—often too much detail—through all the key matters that have so far been reached.
  We have had lengthy discussions about exemptions. We should restrict the number of exemptions to the bare minimum. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been able to say that, in the case of bona fide religious orders in which vows of poverty have been taken — where monks and nuns are outside the system of state support—the community charge will not apply. That is a good example of the reasonableness and flexibility of my right hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues
  Mr. Harry Barnes: What does the hon. Gentleman say about those who have not taken vows of poverty, but, by the circumstances in which they live, have had poverty thrust upon them? Would they not be in similar circumstances to those of nuns and monks, who rightly should be considered?
  Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman has almost answered his own point. Such people are covered by rebates. Monks and nuns, who are outside the state support system, have taken vows of poverty and do not receive benefit. They are clearly exceptions to the normal rules.
  The principal reason why I support this generous timetable motion is that time will now be specifically allocated to ensure the scrutiny of all parts of the Bill. It
  54
  may not be widely appreciated outside the House that discussion of clauses relating specifically to the community charge will not really be subject to any guillotine. Only one last substantive issue—rebates—remains to be discussed in Committee, so on the key issue that the Opposition have identified as the most objectionable part of the measure, there will effectively be no guillotine at all.
  In spite of the usual head of steam that traditionally accompanies debates of this nature, but which has been markedly absent this afternoon, the Government deserve to secure their business within a reasonable time scale. The Committee has been proceeding somewhat more slowly than its counterpart Committee examining the Education Reform Bill. After all, that Committee reached clause 43 in 88 hours. We have been proceeding at less than half that speed.
  Dr. Cunningham: What does that mean?
  Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Member asks what that means. One of the major points that came out of the guillotine debate on the Education Reform Bill—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The House will stick to one Bill at a time. The hon. Member should confine his remarks to the Local Government Finance Bill.
  Mr. Mitchell: I apologise for allowing myself to be led up the garden path by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). It tends to happen a great deal in Committee.
  We must ensure that the measure proceeds in an orderly, structured, and rapid way. Those of us who were previously involved in inner-city areas, who saw the way in which businesses were treated by Left-wing authorities in respect of rates, and who saw the consequent loss of jobs and employment opportunities as businesses moved elsewhere or simply folded up, must ensure that time is balanced to allow discussion of all the important clauses, including those dealing with the future of the business rating system.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House why it is that the whole range of the business community, from the CBI, representing big business, to small traders, would rather keep the present system than have the system that the Government are introducing?
  Mr. Mitchell: That is untrue. Most would readily agree that what we propose is an improvement on what exists. It depends whether they perceive themselves as gainers or losers. In inner-city areas of the type that I was talking about, one would have great difficulty finding any major business man who does not welcome the proposed changes in the system.
  The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Michael Howard): Does my hon. Friend agree that the CBI has specifically said that, although it has reservations about our proposals, it regards them as a considerable improvement on the present system, and that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has totally misrepresented the position?
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The CBI has made representations. As long as it does not have to pay so much, it prefers the proposed system. The hon. Gentleman and the Minister know that the business community is opposed to the Bill going ahead unamended. That applies in inner cities just as much as it applies elsewhere.
  Mr. Mitchell: My hon. and learned Friend the Minister made the key point in response to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) — that the proposals are widely welcomed as a major improvement on what we have at the moment.
  Dr. Cunningham: How can the hon. Gentleman say that the proposals are widely welcomed? They are opposed by the Institute of Directors, the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd., and chambers of commerce, including the London chamber of commerce, the biggest one in the country. The Confederation of British Industry has major reservations about the proposals. How can the hon. Gentleman construe that as a wide welcome?
  Mr. Mitchell: With respect, the hon. Gentleman sows the seeds of his argument on fallow ground. He talked about chambers of commerce. Is he aware that, for example, the Nottingham chamber of commerce, one of the largest of these bodies in the country, is in favour of the terms of the proposals? The list that the hon. Gentleman trotted out will not stand up. My experience in Islington strongly supports the view that, over the years, local businesses were driven out. More generally, business men welcome the changes that are now coming to pass. The stance of Opposition Members would be easier to understand if they were propounding or supporting some alternative structure or formula for financing local government. They are not doing so.
  These matters have now been discussed for years. They formed a key part of our election manifesto. The timetable measure strikes the right balance between useful and welcome scrutiny on the one hand, and unnecessary delays on the other. We should now get on with it.
  5.39 pm
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: The hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) has just displayed the originality with which he makes his contributions to the Committee by saying that a rose by any other name is still a rose. The subject that we are debating is a gross injustice and remains a gross injustice even when it is dressed up in words such as "community charge". That is why the people of Britain are calling it by the more realistic name of the poll tax and the Government have managed to persuade only a tiny number to use their phrase.
  The Government are trying to shorten debate in Committee because they are suffering acute embarrassment. Every day that the Committee meets, more of the absurdities, anomalies, rank injustices and sheer in-coherence of the Bill are exposed. All that they can do is repeat what a good thing it is for the classes which it is intended to benefit.
  Recently, the Secretary of State for the Environment, in one of his infrequent contributions to the Committee, claimed that the community charge would be an excellent thing for just about everyone. I asked him whether he would come to Maryhill and tell the people what a wonderful thing it was. He riposted, "The hon. Lady should come to the Cotswolds." I accepted his invitation immediately, but did he accept the invitation to Maryhill? Not on your life. He dodged it and allowed the Committee Chairman to propose the next business of the Committee.
  Not content to leave matters there, I wrote to the Secretary of State accepting his invitation to the
  56
  Cotswolds, asking him when and where he wished to arrange a meeting, and asking him whether, in return, he would visit Maryhill. Today, I received a letter from the Secretary of State which I criticise in the same way as we criticise the contents of the Bill. He said:
  "I doubt if you would be very welcome in the Cotswolds if you were to speak against my constituents getting relief from their excessive rate burdens!"
  "Excessive rate burdens" in the Cotswolds? Who is he kidding? I know what I am doing by seeking an invitation to visit the Cotswolds. I know that I will find there rich, greedy people who are looking forward to benefiting from the poll tax, but I also know that I will find rich, unselfish people who do not wish to impose such a burden on their poorer friends and neighbours. Even in the Cotswolds there will be people whom the legislation will not benefit — but they will hear nothing about that from the Secretary of State. Someone must go there, and I am willing to do so any time he wants.
  The Secretary of State went on to say in his letter:
  "I would not impose such an unpleasant experience on you. I am far too fond of you!"
  I am not at all fond of the right hon. Gentleman. Nor are the constituents of Maryhill, which is why, at the general election, Maryhill returned a Labour Member with a majority of 19,500. The Secretary of State is afraid to come to places such as Maryhill to put over his views, because he knows the sort of response he would be likely to get.
  The letter continues:
  "So shall we call it all off?"
  My response is no, certainly not. My invitation stands, and I want to visit the Cotswolds. The final sentence states:
  "The place for us to debate is in Committee Room 10."
  That is exactly what we want to do. He is the one who is calling off the debate by imposing a guillotine on it, yet he says the place for us to debate is Committee Room 10. Well, I shall have to do that, since he will not come to Maryhill. I am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's cowardice in this respect. I thought that the man who came to Clydeside to close our shipyards would not be afraid to come to Maryhill and tell us about the poll tax.
  I make a bargain with the Secretary of State. I forewarn him about the points that I shall make if someone invites me to visit the Cotswolds. I shall ask people whether they think it sensible that prisoners on remand will pay poll tax if found not guilty, but will be exempted if they are found guilty. I shall appeal to their common sense.
  I shall ask the women in the Cotswolds whether it is fair that they will have to pay the same poll tax as their husbands even if they earn nothing or a half or three quarters of what their husbands earn. I shall ask the women whether they think it fair that a wife will be jointly and severally liable for her husband's poll tax, as he is for hers, regardless of her ability to pay. Indeed, some women will have to ask their husbands to hand over the money so that her poll tax can be paid. Talk about a return to Victorian values!
  I shall ask the cost-conscious people—the ones who wish to save money on local government — if it is sensible to introduce a system that will cost twice as much to collect as the present system. I shall ask the people who own second homes whether they think it sensible that they must pay the same standard poll tax whether their little holiday retreat is a country mansion or a small home with an outside toilet.
  Above all, I shall ask the people of the Cotswolds whether it is right that the well-off farmer should pay the

  57
  same poll tax as his labourer. I shall ask the City fat cats who travel to London every morning whether it is right that they should pay the same poll tax as the milkman, the postman and the man who sells them their tickets at the railway station.
  I shall have a great deal to say when I visit the Cotswolds — if anyone asks me — and I shall be interested to hear whether the Secretary of State intends to visit Maryhill.
  5.46 pm
  Mr. David Shaw: I support the timetable motion. For the past 15 years, during which I have been involved in politics, debate has centred on the fact that the current rating system is unfair and must be replaced. That replacement is almost on the statute book, and it is time that we allowed the opportunity for a full debate on it.
  The community charge is necessary because many people will benefit from it, including about 2 million single old-age pensioners. It was a surprise to me to hear the Opposition members of the Committee wishing to deny the benefits to those 2 million old-age pensioners.
  We have seen much literature suggesting that the community charge is unpopular. But that has been false literature produced by Labour councils, often at public expense, or by local Labour parties.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Why is the Conservative-controlled Association of District Councils completely opposed to the poll tax?
  Mr. Shaw: I am fully aware that many organisations, Conservative and otherwise, have reservations about some aspects of the community charge. But whether others oppose it or not, it is certainly true that the current system is unfair and does not treat people properly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) said, it is unfair to the old-age pensioner living in a house next door to four wage earners. During my four years on a council, I observed the number of households that did not pay fair rates because they had four wage earners in the family.
  The Labour party has stirred up opposition to the community charge, and my constituents have written to me quoting Opposition literature. In reply, I have pointed out that, if the community charge is introduced on this year's figures, it is likely to he £151 in Dover compared with £600 or £700 in Labour-controlled areas, such as Brent, Camden and Islington.
  Mr. Pike: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Shaw: In a moment.
  The key point that I make to my constituents is that it is better to have a well-run borough council and gain the benefit from it than a badly run borough council and suffer the disbenefit. In the Bill we are introducing a system whereby efficient local authorities which care about ratepayers' and taxpayers' money can demonstrate that fact to the benefit of their locality, unlike councils which could not care less.
  Mr. Pike: When the hon. Gentleman replied to his constituents, did he point out that over the country as a whole the majority of those who will lose as a result of the legislation are those who can least afford to lose, while a substantial number who will gain least need to gain?
  Mr. Shaw: I do not accept that. In Committee we have frequently given the Opposition the facts, statistics and
  58
  exemplifications from the Department of the Environment which show the large numbers of people who will gain. We have also seen anomalies, but these are less than under the present system of rates.
  The Opposition have frequently said that the community charge will be unfair. The Secretary of State in his generosity has given the Opposition the opportunity to suggest alternative proposals, but they have failed at every stage. That is why we have to debate this timetable motion: we cannot get sensible alternatives from the Opposition, yet they spend a great deal of time arguing that these proposals are unfair.
  Mr. Dykes: I agree with my hon. Friend that the principal Opposition have not put forward any meaningful ideas so that debates are taking place within the Conservative party and, to a lesser extent, among alliance Members. How does my hon. Friend deal with the awkward point raised by our hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) in this debate and in Committee — that it is all very well constructing a theoretical idea that one can make a direct measurement between the extravagant and the non-extravagant authorities—presumably Tory-controlled authorities are the latter and Labour-controlled authorities the former—with this new system, but as it is most likely, because we live in a wicked world, that the central Government resource allocation input system, now to be called revenue support rather than RSG, will be manipulated by the Department of the Environment through its incomprehensible computer system just as it has been in the past, the whole system will become wholly otiose?
  Mr. Shaw: I, too, have severe reservations about the rate support grant system and the way it has operated in the past, but all that we and the Government can do is try over a period to move to a fairer, better system under which the people who pay more will be those who are foolish enough to elect a local council which wastes money. Surely what lies behind amendments to the rate support grant system in recent years is the attempt to penalise the extravagant and to benefit those with good husbandry.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will concede publicly that the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who represents Plaid Cymru, and my two hon. Friends who represent the Liberal party on the Committee have throughout clearly stated our view that a local income tax is a fairer and more acceptable alternative. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Government should support that, even if the proposition must come from our parties because the Labour party has not yet decided on its alternative?
  Mr. Shaw: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's point, but if he had the benefit of serving on the Committee —I realise that he is employed elsewhere—he would have learned that under a local income tax system, a nurse living in Camden would have to pay 26p in the pound. That is a phenomenal sum. Even if my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer manages to reduce income tax substantially in the Budget, it would take her rate of taxation above 50p in the pound. Local income tax is not a fair or reasonable alternative to the community charge. Time and again it has become clear in Committee that the Opposition have no alternative to the community charge.

  59
  The motion is about making progress on the Bill and I hope that some of my remarks have shown that it is necessary to do so. Not only is this the only Bill before the Committee but it is the best Bill that the Committee could have. The Opposition have been taking far too long to make their points. Speeches lasting 20 minutes or more are common and 15-minute speeches are the rule. I would not object to that if it were not for the great amount of repetition.
  Countless times I have heard the Opposition suggest that people will evade the tax. It shocks me that they can suggest that so many people are keen on tax evasion. [Laughter.] It is staggering. What is even more amazing is the number of Scottish Opposition Members who comment on that. Scottish Members seem to spend most of their time trying to make out that the people of Scotland are utterly dishonest. Indeed, if I were not married to a Scottish lady, I should have severe doubts about what the people north of the border get up to. In time, the Scottish version of the community charge will be seen to benefit Scotland as it will help to control local authority expenditure.
  One message comes across in Committee. Not only do the Opposition not want to hear of the benefits from the community charge, but when they appear to listen they do not seem to want to understand. That is a critical reason why we are debating this motion.
  Mr. Allen McKay: The hon. Gentleman says that we do not listen to the benefits of the poll tax. Can he explain to the 94 per cent. of my constituents who will lose what those benefits are likely to be?
  Mr. Shaw: If the hon. Gentleman will arrange for me to visit his constituency, I shall be delighted to explain to his constituents the benefits of the community charge.
  It is important to consider the quality of the debates in Committee, particularly some of the statements about the costs of the community charge. We have had wild and extreme estimates, and references to hundreds of millions of pounds of computer costs. The House will be pleased to know that I have managed to obtain more accurate figures which I hope to bring to the Committee's attention in the next few weeks. The Opposition's figures have not been based on fact, nor have they been checked or audited. One often wonders whether the statements are solely for the purpose of playing to the gallery. They are certainly not to further the debate. The timetable motion will mean that the Opposition talk more sense and less nonsense.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke earlier of Government amendments taking time in Committee. There have been many Government amendments to the Bill, but they were sensible, necessary and useful in assisting the administration of the community charge. They were speedily dealt with.
  I cannot avoid one aspect of our discussions in Committee. Occasionally, and regrettably, we have heard some intemperate language from the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). Perhaps that was because he was tired of listening to speakers on his own side. I say that because Conservative Members have taken up little time. Our speeches have been brief and to the point.
  60
  I believe the Government want to give the Bill a fair chance of being discussed, which is why they have brought in the timetable motion. The House should support it.
  6 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: I want to discuss some of the arguments deployed by the Leader of the House when introducing the timetable motion. First, he argued that an excessive number of amendments had been tabled in Committee, especially on the first clause, which is only five lines long. Clause 1 deals with some of the basic principles of the Bill and categorises three different forms of poll tax or community charge that can be levied. So the amendments to clause 1 provided an opportunity to debate the wider implications of the whole measure, and the debate, at that stage, was worth while.
  It has also been argued that the time spent on changing the name from the community charge to the poll tax was excessive—but to call the tax a community charge is a fraud. The name "poll tax" is clearly understood and honest, and it allows us to discuss the Bill's general principles. As such, it is well worth full discussion. I am a person who likes discussing words, ideas and principles and I see nothing wrong with that.
  It might be well worth while for the Government to consider exactly what the Bill is about. It does two things. It switches wealth from one sector of society to another, in line with principles shared by most Conservative Members, who believe that investment emerges in that way. We disagree with that. Other elements in the Bill concern the excessive powers being given to central Government, carrying on from other legislation that dealt with rate capping and other matters of local government. The Bill is a further extension of provisions that give considerable authority to central Government.
  Many of the Conservative Members in Committee need to reflect on whether they are really happy about so much authority being passed into the hands of central Government, and about local government beginning to disappear as an effective force and becoming a mere cypher, acting on decisions that have already been made centrally. Is that healthy for democracy and the dissemination of different views and interests? Is it good for concessions and compromises in society?
  The Leader of the House also used the answerability argument, about which we used to hear a great deal in Committee. We used to hear how, as all voters paid the poll tax, their involvement made them and local councils responsible, accountable and answerable. Strangely, some of those arguments have now started to disappear. We had a debate in Committee about joint and several liability. It blew away once and for all the idea that the Bill is in some way about answerability. If, for example, a husband deserted his wife—did a runner, as they say—she would be jointly and severally responsible for payment of the outstanding poll tax moneys.
  There is no essential link in the legislation between the payment of the poll tax and the exercise of the vote, and it would be nonsense if there were. Often, the head of the household might pay out the money for the whole household, and presumably, under a system of accountability, he would have to exercise a right to vote several times in line with the moneys he had paid out. Thus, the notion of accountability has begun to disappear; so has the notion that democracy is somehow enhanced by the operation of the poll tax.

  61
  It has already been mentioned that the poll tax discourages electoral registration. The Bill may provide for the electoral registrar getting hold of registers that are being compiled and reinstating people on them, but there will certainly be a desire to hide from payment. That will have an adverse effect on the universal franchise. As one of the Ministers has rightly said, this Bill will have a major effect on the franchise—the greatest since the early years of the century, and probably since the 19th century. It is the first move that we have had away from the universal franchise, rather than towards its extension.
  Worse, the Bill attempts to fix the results of elections. Pressure will be applied such that Conservative councils will be the only option for election — not merely Conservative councils, but Conservative councils of a particular political flavour, which will keep poll tax levels down. If Labour or alternative parties try to operate, they will be allowed to do so only to the extent that they function in accordance with those same principles. How is that Hobson's choice a democracy? Surely a democracy should allow people to choose between alternatives and offer an avenue through which the poorer members of society can seek redress of some of the imbalances within it, so that money is paid by the wealthy to those who are poor. The Bill tries to exclude from the system an option in the democratic process.
  The Leader of the House also used the argument that the poll tax was in the Tory election manifesto, so the Government could go ahead with it. That is one of the most pathetic arguments that could be used. There is no mandate for the poll tax: a mandate requires a full and frank up-front discussion during an election, which did not happen in England and Wales. That is perhaps, to some extent, the fault of the Labour party for not drawing attention to the tax as a major issue, as it should have done. If it had done so, some of the consequences in Scotland would have occurred here, too. The only area in the nation in which the tax has been considered fully and frankly is Scotland, where it was firmly rejected by the electorate. The Labour party was glad to have the opportunity to use the issue to fight an effective campaign there, and I hope we shall soon be doing the same in this country.
  Dr. Michael Clark: The hon. Gentleman said that the only place in the country in which the poll tax was mentioned in the last election was Scotland, but I mentioned the community charge many times in my election campaign in June last year, and was returned with a majority of almost 20,000.
  Mr. Barnes: It is a matter of degree; the issue was certainly mentioned in the election, and there was some publicity about it in the media, but I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman was the only element that determined the result in his constituency. We all know that elections here are much more presidential than that, depending a great deal on the party platforms that are argued across the country.
  Such argument failed to take place in England and Wales on that occasion. Many of us tried to raise the issue in our constituencies but it was swamped by other issues that the Goverment sought to raise during the election. They staged propaganda campaigns about "reds" and raised "white surrender" scares. They were the major items considered during the campaign. It is only in those areas
  62
  that the Government could possibly claim to have a mandate, but they do not have a mandate for this detailed bit of legislation or for many of the other measures that are passing through the House.
  Mrs. Fyfe: Does my hon. Friend agree that the reason why the campaign against the poll tax was so effective in Scotland was that it was coming into force there a year earlier than in England? That concentrated the minds of Scottish people. Likewise, recent opinion polls in England and Wales have shown that people there are becoming more and more opposed to the poll tax.
  Mr. Barnes: I agree with my hon. Friend. The immediacy of the issue concentrates people's minds upon it and brings it to the front of their minds, causing them to discuss their own circumstances and the problems that they will face.
  There should not be a timetable motion. We need more time to discuss the issue in Committee so that the reality of the poll tax can begin to dawn on some of the Conservative Members. They need to be able to draw together the strands of their alternative position and decide upon the extent to which they will support Opposition amendments. The hon. Member for Acton (Sir G. Young) is seen as the major Conservative rebel, but in some ways he needs to get his act together and decide where he stands on various issues. He supports the idea of excluding student nurses in the same way as university students would be excluded and proposed amendment No. 72 in relation to that. That fell because a Government new clause was introduced.
  In the vote on an amendment by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), which was a substitute for amendment No. 72, the hon. Member for Acton is recorded in the Committee Hansard as voting against. On another occasion an amendment was brought forward under clause 11 by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), and there is no record of a vote by the hon. Member for Acton. He either recorded a no vote or was absent when the vote took place. I confront him with those matters, but if I have got them wrong I shall apologise to him. He has faced three ways on one issue and needs to be much more solid.
  The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) has expressed reservations in the House and is in many ways a pale shadow of the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton in terms of his opposition. Presumably he is adopting a Fabian attitude, and his strategy may be to bide his time until the opportunity is exactly right. Then he will strike and vote with the Opposition on specific amendments. I hope that that is the case.
  The hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) is seeking a small poll tax, and his amendment, which is to be discussed later, will move money towards the central Exchequer. If that happens, it will aid the process by which central Government have control and authority over what takes place at local level. It will get over the problem of imbalance and injustice and some of the unfairness of this measure. However, it will not tackle the issue of considerable centralised control. I hope that the hon. Member for Kensington will think of some fallback position to try to get the best that he can out of his own ideas and values. I have said that in Committee.
  The answerability argument has gone out of the window and hon. Members using it in Committee have

  63
  lowered it considerably. It has yet to dawn on Conservative Members that central Government are operating massive powers. Some Conservative Members are strong advocates of free enterprise and competitiveness and are worried about monopoly control and development. For that reason, they should be worried about the development of centralised control.
  The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) is not in the Chamber and is seldom seen in Committee. She adopts a very anti-state stance and is worried about centralised control. The House Magazine reports that she has on her House of Commons writing paper the legend:
  "The state is the great fiction by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else."
  If the hon. Lady thinks that the state is such a fiction and a corrupting centralised organisation, why is she willing regularly to vote for advancing the powers of the Secretary of State? In this measure the Secretary of State and in other measures other Secretaries of State are given enormous enabling powers. The Secretary of State will be something of a municipal Mussolini, but perhaps without the charisma that Mussolini had.
  Conservative Members in the Committee need time to think the measure through and time to talk about their ideas before having them discussed in Committee. Labour has embarked on a listening campaign, and I was pleased to listen to the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) because those were the first words that I heard from him. The hon. Member for Gedling made, as it were his maiden speech on the poll tax, and his views must be considered.
  My final point is on a matter that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). It has been said in Committee that a measure is to be brought forward on Report to introduce imprisonment as a fallback for those who do not pay the poll tax. That measure should be brought forward and fully considered in Committee and afterwards on the Floor of the House. I ask hon. Members to vote against the timetable motion.
  6.16 pm
  Mr. David Wilshire: As a new Member, I am continually surprised in this place, and this debate is no exception. This is the first guillotine motion debate that I have sat through. I had assumed, apparently wrongly, that I would be confronted by row upon row of indignant Opposition Members shrieking about censorship and the lack of time to deal with the Bill. Instead I see row upon row of total contentment, because I have always found that when people do not turn up it means that they are entirely happy about what is being done. I can only assume that the contentment on the Conservative side is mirrored by contentment on the Opposition side.
  One other matter that surprised me is that I seem to be sitting through a Second Reading debate. We have heard all the reasons why the community charge is good or bad, why it should be introduced and the reasons for holding it up. However, we have not had much discussion about the guillotine motion. That is why I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) who said that perhaps the Leader of the House might find it useful to look at procedures. We ought to be discussing how we can have a sensible debate during the rest of the time that the Bill is in Committee. I have sat through most of the 72 hours so far and I did not recognize
  64
  much of a sensible debate. It has been fairly repetitive and nit-picking. I welcome this chance to help impose some sort of structure on the rest of the debate, because some fundamental issues have still to be discussed.
  Much has been said about the business rate but not much has been said about the change in the grant system. Eleven years in local government have taught me that the current grant system is understood by hardly anybody. When one does discover a bit about it, one sees that it is something of an absurdity. We must spend a sensible amount of time getting the grant system right. I hope that we shall also put some structure into the Committee from now on and will be spared further ramblings about the rating aspects of grand prix racing tracks and about when full-time cohabitation becomes part-time cohabitation. If we are spared more of that sort of debate, I shall be grateful.
  The issues that seem to have occupied most hon. Members do not have much to do with the guillotine motion. The first argument that sticks in my mind is that, because there is no precedent for this legislation, it should be given extra time. But I have heard hour upon hour of discussion about what happens in Scotland. I have heard for hour upon hour from hon. Members representing Scotland. I keep being told that there is a precedent.
  We have also been told that we should delay it because everybody is against it. My mailbag, my supporters and my council do not suggest that. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) causes some excitement only by saying that the ADC is against it. The hon. Gentleman knows better than to go beyond that.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I was making the point that every representative body of local government of whatever party is completely opposed to the proposals. The hon. Gentleman's own council may be in favour of it, but no letter has yet appeared in the Library showing that any council is wholeheartedly in favour of it. The hon. Gentleman must accept that no representative group of local government, north or south of the border, supports the measure, and it has been opposed by local government throughout the country.
  Mr. Wilshire: In view of the time, I shall not rise to that. I refer the hon. Gentleman to my comments in Committee, which are well reported.
  The last argument to which I shall refer is that we have not been listening. I have listened to the best part of 72 hours, I have listened until my ears ache, and I have yet to hear anything to make me change my mind. The measure is a good one, and the sooner it reaches the statute book the better.
  6.21 pm
  Dr. John Cunningham: All hon. Members who have spoken have agreed that the Bill, because of its importance, needs thorough and proper scrutiny. As several hon. Members have said, we are not talking only about a personal poll tax. We are talking about a Bill that will introduce a national business tax, under ministerial control. We are talking about a new grant system for the allocation of about £13 billion of public money each year. We are talking about proposals that will give Ministers budgetary control and poll tax-capping powers covering every local authority in England and Wales. We are talking about the future—it is not clear from the Bill

  65
  whether there is a future—of discretionary expenditure under what is at present section 137, the 2p rate, which is used by local authorities of all political persuasions for local matters such as economic development and the support of voluntary organisations and charities in their communities.
  A large number of important issues still have to be considered by the Committee. It has always been, and remains, the intention of the Opposition that such matters should be thoroughly and adequately debated. That is why we have not sought to waste time. In spite of one or two comments to the contrary, it is generally recognised that there has been no deliberate time wasting in Committee by the Opposition.
  Conservative Members who have been supporting the timetable motion have not recognised that there has been no White Paper about the proposals. The Government have not published the responses to the Green Paper on the proposals. The Government have consistently hidden that evidence from Parliament and from the Committee. Had that information been published, it might have saved the House and the Committee some time during their consideration of these issues. The Government gain nothing by being secretive. It is precisely for that reason, and for similar related reasons, such as the late publication, or availability in the Committee, of the Government's intentions on students that the Opposition have had to force debates and table amendments to seek clarification from the Government. We make no apology for that. After all, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that the Government have tabled as many amendments to the Bill as anyone else.
  It is also the case that the longest single speech made in Committee was made by the Minister for Local Government, who spoke for almost two hours in response to a very important group of amendments. I do not criticise him for that. I did not criticise him at the time. He tried, within the limitations of the principles embodied in the Bill, to respond to questions put to him in Committee, and he was right to do so. I am not complaining about that. It may be necessary for the Minister or for the Secretary of State to reply at length in future. If it is necessary, it is a proper and legitimate function in the Committee's consideration of such measures. It was a measure of 131 clauses and 12 schedules when it was published. Now, several new clauses have been tabled by the Government, in addition to all the amendments.
  The measure is dubbed the Government's flagship, and as such I should have thought that everyone, including Conservative Members, would welcome a most painstaking scrutiny of it. After all, they would not want to spoil their flagship for want of a little paint and a ha'p'orth of tar. The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) likened it to the Titanic. I suggest that perhaps it is more likely to end up like the Mary Rose. It may not get through its launch or its maiden voyage. It may capsize under the weight of its own inadequate design.
  As I understand the motion, which the Leader of the House commends us to accept, we shall have approximately 70 hours more to discuss the issue. On the face of it, that seems generous. Several Conservative Members have made the point that we shall now have some structured debate and the timetable will guarantee the proper scrutiny of every aspect of the Bill. It will do no such thing. At each stage within the timetable, the
  66
  guillotine will fall, whether or not there has been proper scrutiny of each clause in that section of the timetable. The timetable brings no such guarantee.
  Indeed, 70 hours, when there are still more than 100 clauses and several schedules to be discussed, does not guarantee on average—although I accept that averages are not always meaningful—one hour of consideration in Committee per clause. It is not nearly as generous as the Leader of the House seemed to imply. The procedures of the House simply are not adequate to deal with measures of such a size, nature, complexity, and on which there is a dispute between parties. That seems to have been self-evident for many years.
  Several hon. Members who are new to the House have said that this is the first time that they have taken part in a debate on a guillotine motion. I have taken part in a debate on a guillotine motion. I have taken part in several such debates from both sides of the argument, from the point of view of the Government, and from the point of view of the Opposition. I have to confess straight away that political head-standing is rather difficult for politicians, who generally do not make very good gymnasts. I think that it has something to do with the fact that the centre of gravity of most politicians is higher above the waist than it should be for them to perform good balancing feats. In some hon. Members it is too far above the shoulders.
  The procedures of the House are not adequate, whatever the Government may say. The hon. Members for Crawley (Mr. Soames) is laughing about centres of gravity. He is the last hon. Member who should be laughing, although I have to concede that his centre of gravity is well down, if I can put it delicately. Perhaps he will be rather better than some of his colleagues at this kind of balancing act. I have no doubt that the Government planned the presentation of this timetable to the House when they were planning the whole of their parliamentary year. Notwithstanding that, the Government have tabled, and will continue to table, a large number of amendments.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) made an entertaining speech, but he could have taken a much earlier historical analogy. If I have learnt nothing else today, I have learnt that I can gain access to the Bible for reference by asking the Clerk of the House for the key and opening the Dispatch Box—something that I have never yet done. Since historical analogies seem to be in order in giving dire warnings to the Government—I hazard a guess that a right hon. Member with an address like "The Old Rectory" knows this already—I can give a much older analogy than the peasants' revolt. Here is a quote from St. Luke, chapter 2:
  "And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed."
  We have been along this road a lot earlier than the peasants' revolt, and the outcome has always been the same. Those proposing such taxes have ended up on the losing side. We have seen that most recently in Scotland, and I have no doubt that we shall see it again.
  Mr. Dykes: The hon. Gentleman is trotting out rather tired metaphors about ships, gymnastics and now the Bible. When will we hear the Labour party's proposals?
  Dr. Cunningham: I thought that I had heard Conservative Members say that this debate was about the

  67
  timetable and not about the merits of the Bill. I am not speaking about the merits of the Bill, but I would be more than happy to do so when we return to Committee tomorrow morning, as long as the hon. Member will promise me that his attendance will be at least as good as mine when we are discussing these matters—something that he has signally failed to do so far.
  I say, most kindly, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent is a traditionalist in these matters and his views depart slightly from mine. Having said that, I believe that the proceedings of the House are inadequate, and are regularly demonstrated to be inadequate, and I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). It would be in the interests of the House if time were found to debate the second report of the Procedure Committee in the 1985–86 Session, which sought to bring the attention of the House to these matters. The problem is, and remains, one of inherent conflict between the views and the objectives of the Government and the views and objectives of the Opposition. It will be in the long-term interest of the House to make a serious attempt to resolve these matters, although I do not necessarily agree with everything that the report says.
  Hon. Members may be asking themselves why I shall vote against the guillotine motion. It is because, in the end, like all its predecessors, it is being imposed arbitrarily by an Executive which already has too much power over Parliament in these matters—a power that is long overdue for redress.
  6.33 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): The debate has been so relaxed and friendly that there has been time for some merriment. We have had added to the "gardener chappy" in Selly Oak, the municipal Mussolini, from the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes).
  We had the delightful speech of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), and that of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott), who commented on my education, saying that it has been a good education. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent had a good education himself. He went to Leighton Park school and then on to Wadham, where presumably he learned a little history. He might get it right. When the poll tax was introduced, King Richard II was 14, so we cannot blame him.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) thought that the Bill might turn out to be the Titanic, but at least it could not be as bad as the efforts of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, who lost four out of his flotilla of five Bills that he guillotined in that one famous afternoon in July, which all turned out to be Titanics.
  Mr. Leigh: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on that famous occasion when the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) attempted to poleaxe consideration of five Bills, one young Labour Member said:
  "I have not yet had the advantage of being in opposition and I do not intend to be in that position. 'Winner takes all' is an ugly phrase, but that is how the system works. If a party wins a General Election, it is the winner who takes all until the people are again consulted within five years … We are
  68
  considering whether the Government are entitled to see that they carry out what they are mandated to do. That is what a guillotine motion is all about."—[Official Report, 20 July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 1654–55.]
  The hon. Member who said that was then the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth, but is now the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott), who led for the Opposition today. Surely people in legislative glasshouses should not throw stones.
  Mr. Ridley: That is typical of how these guillotine debates go, but it is not for me in the few minutes that remain to say what will be the right way for the House to debate these matters in the future.
  Having spent 72½ hours considering 21 clauses, including five new ones, and two schedules, including one new schedule, we must make a little more progress. The Bill contains another 115 clauses and 11 schedules, which means that, on the basis of progress so far, we would be sitting until the end of July.
  There has been a marked lack of urgency on the part of the Opposition. We have perhaps been too accommodating. The start of the Committee was delayed from 19 January to 21 January because the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) was out of the country. We helped him further with an early finish on 28 January to enable the Opposition to attend a local government conference, at which they continued their fruitless search for a policy on local government finance. Perhaps we should give them another afternoon to pursue that, because they have not yet found one. On Thursday last, 18 February, they asked for the whole of the afternoon session, which once again we gave them. By these means, we lost 13 hours of debate—nor did we receive much progress in return when we did sit.
  Mr. Allen McKay: Will the Secretary of State admit that, to facilitate that granting of time, we did not debate the sittings motion?
  Mr. Ridley: I am going back to the point that we have not had the progress that we need.
  From time to time, when the Committee has been sitting, little progress has been made. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), perhaps one of those who has spoken for longest, could be described—in the words of one of his friends, the former hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan in the Committee which dealt with the Scottish legislation — as suffering from natural verbosity. Then there was the speech made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins), which took so long and was so incoherent that the Committee became inquorate and hon. Members had to take refuge in the Corridor outside.
  Apart from such long-winded contributions from Opposition Members, the discussion has been amiable and has ambled along, but slowly. The atmosphere has been congenial and the debate has been generally constructive. In response to arguments advanced by various Opposition Members, the Government have willingly taken away a number of points for further consideration covering joint and several liability, register entries concerning deceased persons and remission from payment by the courts on the grounds of poverty.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that only one such undertaking had been given and that that had been given to one of the Liberal Members on the Committee. However, that is not

  69
  right. Three or more undertakings were given. Indeed, I must tell the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey that I cannot tell the difference between a Liberal, Welsh nationalist, or Socialist opposition in Committee. There is no difference at all between them.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Ridley: I will not give way.
  All the concessions that we offered are important. They are intended to improve the system that we have proposed and I am grateful for that. However, none of the arguments advanced by Opposition Members has in any way dented the principle of our proposals. Indeed, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), whom we welcome to the debate, at times seemed to hope that the timetable motion would be introduced soon, as it was the only thing that would concentrate the minds of his colleagues. Twice in Committee—on 28 January and 2 February—he predicted hopefully and wishfully that the timetable motion would he introduced on 11 February. He was clearly hoping and longing for it and wanted it as soon as he could get it. He will be delighted that it has been introduced now.
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: It is a week late.
  Mr. Ridley: Yes, the hon. Gentleman would rather have had it earlier. As the debate has borne out, very few hon. Members have been present, and at one point I thought that there was a danger that we might have run out of hon. Members wishing to speak. The opposition to this motion has been as weak, wobbly and wishy-washy as it was in Committee.
  Sir Peter Emery: When the timetable motion on the Education Reform Bill was before the House, My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science said that he would try to ensure that all parts of the Bill would be adequately scrutinised and that every tentative proposal would be examined. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment give the House the same assurance about the local Government Finance Bill?
  Mr. Ridley: Indeed I will. However, principally the Opposition must decide how much time they want to give to each section of the Bill. Their judgment must prevail. They must decide how to divide the time that remains. It is my ambition to satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery).
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey drew a comparison with the progress of the legislation to introduce the community charge in Scotland. A timetable motion was introduced for that Bill after 101 hours of debate on 20 clauses which provided for a further six sittings to deal with the remaining 14 clauses. The point is that the timetable motion before the House now will allow a further 19 sittings and 83 hours of debate on the remainder of the Bill. By introducing the motion at this stage it is possible to ensure that fuller debate is given to all aspects of the Bill than was possible for the Scottish Bill. We have supplemented that, as has been much appreciated by hon. Members on both sides of the House, because we have recommended four days for Report and Third Reading.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State accept that the argument that other hon. Members and I have advanced is that for a Bill of this importance we need to ensure that, if possible, every important matter should be debated and if the Committee believes that it has not unduly delayed matters, it should be allowed to run its natural course?
  Mr. Ridley: That will be the case. If we do not waste time, there will be time for all matters to be considered.
  The hon. Member for The Wrekin drew attention to the National Opinion Poll carried out last week. I found its conclusions very comforting. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not set much store by these polls. It concluded:
  "The Conservatives still hold a clear lead in these key areas."
  All those hopes, that the charge would lose the Conservatives political support and would rescue the Labour party, seem to have been dashed. Indeed, in a typically generous passage in his speech, the hon. Member for The Wrekin said that he wanted to put public interest before party interest and he would therefore not hold up the Bill because it was in his party's interests that it should get through as the Conservative party would lose votes. Only a week ago there was a vital county council by-election in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Campaigning under the community charge, the Conservatives, in the form of Warren Hawksley, won a seat from Labour.
  It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put the Question necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to Standing Order No. 81 (Allocation or time to Bills).
  The House divided: Ayes 317, Noes 223.

  Division No. 190]

  [6.45 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Amess, David

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Amos, Alan

  Burt, Alistair

  Arbuthnot, James

  Butcher, John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Butler, Chris

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Butterfill, John

  Ashby, David

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Atkins, Robert

  Carrington, Matthew

  Atkinson, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Cash, William

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Baldry, Tony

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Batiste, Spencer

  Chapman, Sydney

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Chope, Christopher

  Bellingham, Henry

  Churchill, Mr

  Bendall, Vivian

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

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Colvin, Michael

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Conway, Derek

  Boswell, Tim

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Cope, John

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Couchman, James

  Bowis, John

  Cran, James

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Curry, David

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

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

  Brazier, Julian

  Davis, David (Boothfeny)

  Bright, Graham

  Day, Stephen

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Devlin, Tim

  71

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dicks, Terry

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Key, Robert

  Dover, Den

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Dunn, Bob

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Durant, Tony

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knapman, Roger

  Eggar, Tim

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Knox, David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Fallon, Michael

  Lang, Ian

  Farr, Sir John

  Latham, Michael

  Favell, Tony

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Forman, Nigel

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lightbown, David

  Forth, Eric

  Lilley, Peter

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Franks, Cecil

  Lord, Michael

  Freeman, Roger

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  French, Douglas

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Fry, Peter

  McCrindle, Robert

  Gale, Roger

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Gardiner, George

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Gill, Christopher

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Maclean, David

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gorst, John

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Gow, Ian

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Madel, David

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mans, Keith

  Gregory, Conal

  Marland, Paul

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Grist, Ian

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Ground, Patrick

  Mates, Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mellor, David

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Miller, Hal

  Hannam, John

  Mills, Iain

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

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Harris, David

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Hayes, Jerry

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Hayward, Robert

  Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Heddle, John

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Mudd, David

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Needham, Richard

  Hill, James

  Neubert, Michael

  Hind, Kenneth

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Holt, Richard

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Howard, Michael

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

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

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Paice, James

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Irvine, Michael

  Pawsey, James

  Irving, Charles

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Jack, Michael

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Jackson, Robert

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Janman, Tim

  Portillo, Michael

  Jessel, Toby

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Price, Sir David

  72

  Raffan, Keith

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Redwood, John

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Riddick, Graham

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Thorne, Neil

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Rost, Peter

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Tracey, Richard

  Ryder, Richard

  Tredinnick, David

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Trotter, Neville

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Viggers, Peter

  Scott, Nicholas

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Walden, George

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Waller, Gary

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Walters, Dennis

  Shersby, Michael

  Ward, John

  Sims, Roger

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhiil)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Warren, Kenneth

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Watts, John

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Wheeler, John

  Speed, Keith

  Whitney, Ray

  Speller, Tony

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wilshire, David

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Steen, Anthony

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Stern, Michael

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stevens, Lewis

  Wood, Timothy

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Woodcock, Mike

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Yeo, Tim

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Stokes, John

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sumberg, David

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and

  Summerson, Hugo

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Allen, Graham

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Alton, David

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Anderson, Donald

  Canavan, Dennis

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cartwright, John

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Ashton, Joe

  Clay, Bob

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Clelland, David

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Coleman, Donald

  Battle, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Bell, Stuart

  Corbett, Robin

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cousins, Jim

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

  Cox, Tom

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Crowther, Stan

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Cryer, Bob

  Blair, Tony

  Cummings, John

  Blunkett, David

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Boateng, Paul

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Boyes, Roland

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bradley, Keith

  Darling, Alistair

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

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

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Dewar, Donald

  Buchan, Norman

  Dixon, Don

  Buckley, George J.

  Doran, Frank

  Caborn, Richard

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Callaghan, Jim

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  73

  Eadie, Alexander

  Madden, Max

  Eastham, Ken

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Marek, Dr John

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Martlew, Eric

  Fearn, Ronald

  Maxton, John

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Meacher, Michael

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

  Meale, Alan

  Fisher, Mark

  Michael, Alun

  Flannery, Martin

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Flynn, Paul

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Foster, Derek

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Foulkes, George

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Fraser, John

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Fyfe, Maria

  Morley, Elliott

  Galbraith, Sam

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  George, Bruce

  Mullin, Chris

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Murphy, Paul

  Gordon, Mildred

  Nellist, Dave

  Gould, Bryan

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Graham, Thomas

  O'Brien, William

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Parry, Robert

  Grocott, Bruce

  Patchett, Terry

  Hardy, Peter

  Pendry, Tom

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Pike, Peter L.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Henderson, Doug

  Prescott, John

  Hinchliffe, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Home Robertson, John

  Radice, Giles

  Hood, Jimmy

  Randall, Stuart

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Reid, Dr John

  Howells, Geraint

  Richardson, Jo

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Robertson, George

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Illsley, Eric

  Rowlands, Ted

  Ingram, Adam

  Ruddock, Joan

  Janner, Greville

  Salmond, Alex

  John, Brynmor

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Short, Clare

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

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

  Kennedy, Charles

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

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Snape, Peter

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Soley, Clive

  Lambie, David

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lamond, James

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Leighton, Ron

  Stott, Roger

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Strang, Gavin

  Lewis, Terry

  Straw, Jack

  Litherland, Robert

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Turner, Dennis

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Vaz, Keith

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Wall, Pat

  McAllion, John

  Wallace, James

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Walley, Joan

  McCartney, Ian

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Wareing, Robert N.

  McFall, John

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  McKelvey, William

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  McLeish, Henry

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Winnick, David

  McNamara, Kevin

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  McTaggart, Bob

  Worthington, Tony

  McWilliam, John

  Wray, Jimmy

  74

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Mrs. Llin Golding.

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

  Committee
  1. — (1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 24th March 1988.
  (2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 24th March may continue until Ten p.m., whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 25th March 1988.

  Report and Third Reading
  2. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in four allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten p.m. on the last of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
  (2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
  (3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 80 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
  (4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

  Procedure in Standing Committee
  3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
  (2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
  4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

  Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
  5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
  Dilatory Motions
  6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
  Motion under Standing Order No. 20: extra time
  7. If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  Private business
  8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall,

  75
  instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

  Conclusion of proceedings
  9. —(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

  (c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is made by a Member of the Government;

  (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  (3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

  (a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

  (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  (4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  Supplemental orders
  10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  (2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

  Saving
  11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

  (a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or

  (b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

  Recommittal
  12. — (1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of recommittal.
  (2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

  Interpretation
  13. In this Order—
  "allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
  "the Bill" means the Local Government Finance Bill;
  "Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
  "Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Aircraft (Near Miss)
6.58 pm
Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It has come to my knowledge in the past 10 minutes or quarter of an hour that there has been a reported near miss off the east coast of Aberdeen over the North sea. It was between a Royal Air Force F4 Phantom aircraft and a Bristow helicopter carrying 30 passengers. The difficulty is that the Ministry of Defence is refusing to give any information, on the ground that it has to wait to see whether the Bristow helicopter pilot reports the matter to the Civil Aviation Authority as a possible near miss. I understand that that has now been done.
I wonder whether you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have received any request for permission to make a statement from the Secretary of State for Transport, who is present—I apologise for not having given prior notice, but the matter has only just come to my attention—or from the Secretary of State for Defence, to whom I have spoken by telephone.
The problem is that during Transport Question Time this afternoon we had a fairly vigorous and vociferous exchange about air traffic control and passenger safety in general. I am astounded to learn that since Question Time there has been an announcement that there are to be severe restrictions on traffic into Heathrow during the summer because of the serious problem.
We are entitled to raise such issues when accidents and near misses of that kind occur, yet the Minister does not divulge such information at Question Time, when he must be aware of it. I do not know how close the aircraft passed. According to one report, they were within half a mile of each other. A Phantom F4 in a steep dive creates a great deal of turbulence and could well upset the flight of a helicopter. I hope that a statement will be made, if not tonight, then certainly tomorrow, because matters are getting seriously out of hand.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I have listened to the comments of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). I cannot comment at the moment, but I shall make inquiries of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and Defence and then contact the hon. Gentleman later this evening to decide how best to proceed.

Orders of the Day
  Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill
  As amended (in the Select Committee and on recommittal in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill

    Clause 1
    Dr. Reid: Of Private Eye.
    Mr. Bottomley: It is not too clear who the private eye was on that occasion.
    Spokesmen on the Opposition Front Bench raised several issues. I do not accept all their strictures, and I suggest that they, the members of the Select Committee and other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) have confidence in the way in which I normally approach issues. I am not regarded in
    118
    the Department or in Parliament as the sort of person who accepts a brief and reads it out. That is not my way of approaching things, and I should be sorry if people thought it was. The hon. Member for Bradford, South—
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Minister has raised an important point. This is not a matter of personalities. There is no question of the Minister's competence or character here. As the Minister has said, he did not have the opportunity to go through the same long process as the members of the Select Committee. That makes an important difference.
    Mr. Bottomley: I honestly wish that I had appeared before the Select Committee, because if I had it might have been possible to move slightly away from the manner in which the Select Committee procedure has to work under present rules. Under those rules, the petitioners put their case, and the promoters' case is not described in the way that it is described in annex A, which describes the straight factual side of the relationship between wind exceeds and restrictions on the flow of traffic.
    Three major issues were put to the Select Committee. The first was what sort of wind there would be. The second question was what effect it would have on restrictions on traffic. The third question—in effect the trial within the trial, which is where commercial confidentiality comes in —was whether it was possible to add 3 m high wind-shielding to the existing design. Commercial confidentiality was not the issue at the base of the hours of wind. That was a separate issue.
    It is worth saying that Dr. Cook is a recognised expert, and nothing that I have said was designed to undermine that in any way. It was his work that described the hours of exceedence as being plus or minus 40 per cent. Obviously, there is no doubt about the integrity of the proposed bridge, where Dr. Cook's work leads to a confidence factor of plus or minus 5 per cent. That is far more useful than plus or minus 40 per cent., which gives a wide range.
    The issue of commercial confidentiality exercised the Committee to some extent and in some strength, but dealt with the subsidiary issue whether it was possible to adapt the existing bridge design and put 3 m high wind-shielding on it. It is quite clear from my experience around the world, and from research that has been carried out, that there is no bridge with a 3 m high wind shield across an estuary. The closest was the Europa bridge in Austria which had to contend with the fhön wind, which could sweep up suddenly at 80 miles an hour.
    I spent a fair amount of time looking at Japanese road reports. Japan has a 21-mile stretch of road that goes over bridges that do not have wind-shielding. I have here the annual report on roads from the Japan Roads Association. In it there is a picture of the Seiun bridge on the metropolitan expressway. There is one cable-stayed expressway. The Seiun bridge is a different type of bridge, with no wind shields. If wind shields were in any sense common and appeared on, for example, 10 per cent. of the bridges currently under construction, there would be more of a basis for saying that the Department is wrong.
    Mr. Morgan: Does the Minister accept that the same principle would have applied to the Severn bridge in 1966? That was the world's first box girder bridge. The Minister is saying that nothing must ever be done for the first time.
    Mr. Bottomley: No, I spend most of my time arguing the opposite; arguing against the historic negative that one cannot do something in a new way because it has never been done that way before. I am not arguing in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. The addition of limited wind-shielding is acceptable.
    In that context, I should like to pick up some of the points made in the debate. Without the persistent concern of Essex and Kent county councils, I do not think that the partial wind-shielding would have been brought forward in the first place. It was not suddenly produced as a pre-emptive measure three days before the Select Committee started its proceedings. Obviously, work needs to be done to test whether partial wind-shielding would have a good effect and whether the bridge could stand it. One needs to take those issues in the round rather than try to divide people into camps or try to mislead the Select Committee or decide to what extent one side of the argument may have exaggerated or gone up to a 40 per cent. tolerance one way or the other.
    The speech of the hon. Member for Bradford, South showed that interest in this subject is not confined to those who served on the Select Committee. I sometimes wonder, when the hon. Gentleman starts shouting and accusing people of being childish, whether he is moving away from the substance of the debate and on to other approaches to politics.
    The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) spoke about the hybrid Bill procedures. The House is considering opposed private Bills. Hybrid Bills are slightly separate. Perhaps the usual channels will consider what has been said tonight and whether an improvement can be made to the hybrid Bill procedure.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for those remarks. It has been argued that, because the hybrid Bill procedure produces quicker results in planning terms than the formal planning procedures, of necessity it can never be challenged because it might cause delay in the initial programme.
    The other difficulty is that, when we debate such matters, inevitably partisan terms are used. When we are putting a non-party point, I object to hon. Members saying across the Floor of the House that while in previous years I have argued for more jobs, because I wish these issues to be properly and thoroughly discussed I am in favour of losing jobs. That partisan element makes it difficult, under the present procedure, to speak objectively.
    It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

    Clause 1

      CONSTRUCTION OF THE SCHEDULED WORKS
      7 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, leave out lines 14 to 16.
      The purpose of the amendment is to remove from the Bill a requirement that the bridge should be designed so that wind shields are or could be fitted to reduce the effect of wind on vehicles on the bridge to not more than that on vehicles on the approach roads to the present crossing.
      The House and the Government are grateful to the Select Committee for the thorough examination of wind shielding and other issues put to it through 20 days of hearings in the autumn. The Government's response to the Select Committee covers disquiet at the way the case was presented on the question of wind shielding. It explains that we are looking at that question and the lessons to be learned from it. I hope that we can now concentrate on the substance of the amendment.
      A special tribute is due to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman), who sat through every minute of the hearings. Some of what I shall say will be all too familiar to him and his colleagues. I shall describe the new work commenced since the Committee's hearings as a direct result of the Committee's work and the petitioners' cases.
      At paragraph 14 of its special report, the Committee referred to the difficulty that it faced in assessing evidence of a highly technical nature on which experts disagreed fundamentally. That is not surprising. The problem is not new. It arose in connection with the Channel fixed link proposals.
      The methods used to calculate the frequency at which winds blow are not claimed to have a high degree of accuracy. Although the methods advocated by Dr. Cook of the Building Research Establishment for the purpose of structural design are very good for forecasting maximum speeds—he says that they are within 5 per cent.—the estimate of the number of hours in a year during which a gust exceeding a given speed will occur has a margin of error of up to 40 per cent. It is not surprising that there are disagreements.
      This issue is really about traffic management. It may involve abstruse structural engineering and meteorological theory, but it is fundamentally about the management of traffic in high winds which, in the south-east of this country, are fortunately rare.
      We have considered the experiences at certain windy sites in Great Britain. There are three places which have experienced continuing problems—the bridges across the Severn, the Forth and the Humber. At other places, there are sometimes speed restrictions and the odd closure from time to time. An overall strategy does not deal with the problem. The relevant authorities solve the problem at

      79
      each location. Restrictions imposed range from speed limits through lane restrictions to closure to wind-susceptible vehicles—high-sided vehicles, caravans and the like. Complete closure is very rare. The Severn bridge has been closed completely three times in 21 years. The Forth and Humber bridges do not close.
      From the inquiries that we have made during and since the Select Committee hearings, there is a consensus about the wind speeds which cause difficulties to traffic. All those to whom we have spoken in this country with experience of controlling traffic at windy places say that restrictions are considered on wind-susceptible vehicles when gusts of wind reach 50 miles per hour. Some authorities consider restricting the number of lanes in use usually at gusts of about 40 miles per hour, so that vehicles are not blown sideways into others in the adjoining lane. Whether those restrictions are imposed depends on the direction of the wind and traffic behaviour at the time. If the wind is not troubling the traffic, the restrictions are not imposed. The decision is very much one for the man on the spot. In the case of Dartford, that will be the crossing manager, advised by the police. The contract with DRCC — the Dartford River Crossing Company—stipulates that the police decision on this is final.
      How often will it happen at Dartford? That is impossible to say with certainty. Some estimates have been made. Annex A of the response shows the results of applying the methods that the petitioners used to calculate how often the wind blows at certain speeds at various sites throughout the country and how often it has been necessary to impose restrictions.
      The Meteorological Office has checked the estimates for Dartford against data from four anemometer sites in the Thames estuary. Our estimates for Dartford are of the same order as the Meteorological Office data. We are content about the estimates obtained by the forecasting method. If anything, they could be on the high side.
      The annex indicates, as one would expect, that the higher speeds are experienced much less frequently than the lower ones. It indicates that the authorities have not thought it necessary to impose restrictions on wind-susceptible vehicles until gusts of about 50 miles per hour are reached. This appears not to vary with the density of traffic.
      There are locations on the list which carry as much, if not more, traffic than this bridge will. One is the Thelwall viaduct.
      We believe that the wind speeds at which restrictions have to be introduced—threshold speeds—recommended to the Select Committee by the petitioners—35 miles per hour for lane restrictions and 45 miles per hour for closure to wind-susceptible vehicles — do not accord with experience.
      We do not believe that the estimate of hours at which gusts reach a certain speed necessarily translate into hours of restriction. The nearest bridge sites in the list to Dartford are Orwell and Medway. There has been very little trouble there.
      It is reasonable to expect that things will be much the same at Dartford. We draw attention in the response to the Mar Dyke viaduct, immediately north of the present tunnels. The petitioners' forcasting method indicates that we might have expected traffic restrictions there. There have been none.
      80
      There is a feature of suspended bridges which makes them different from other roads—the presence of pylons or towers which hold up the cables. Mr. Brian Smith of Flint and Neill gave evidence to the Select Committee. He explained to the Committee that, at the Severn bridge, the towers caused problems in high winds because, as vehicles are masked by them from the wind, drivers correct steering only to emerge suddenly into the wind again. I can vouch for that. When I was at the Severn bridge the other day, it was one of the windiest days of the year. I stepped out from behind a tower to be struck by a wind 20 knots faster than it had been in shelter. An official who did the same nearly lost his spectacles. Just over half the incidents at the Severn bridge in the years 1984 to 1986 could be related to that effect.
      There is a good case for graded shielding adjacent to the towers at Dartford. We have been told, since the proceedings of the Select Committee, that a similar solution has been adopted at the Little Belt bridge in Denmark with success. This shielding is relatively cheap, about £300,000 and will cause no redesign problems. It will be provided.
      Eliminating to a large degree the effects of the towers will make the bridge more like an ordinary exposed stretch of road. It is right and fair to say that the persistency of the county councils led the bridge designers to come up with this idea. It is also being considered for the present Severn bridge. At Dartford, there will be some protection all the way along the bridge from the parapet which will be a metre high above the level of the road surface with 30 per cent. porosity.
      That is very different from the Severn bridge where the top of the parapet, below the level of the road surface because of the way in which the bridge is constructed, gives no protection to traffic from wind. If that feature reduces the wind speed at road surface level, even by a little, it will add protection to traffic.
      Procedures will be needed for diverting traffic through the tunnels in case of a serious accident or major maintenance, not just because of wind. We are confident that, without causing massive delays, it will be possible to segregate wind-susceptible vehicles from others, as it is at the Severn and other bridges and to divert them.
      At Dartford, they will not face a detour of many miles. They will go along a slip road into the eastern lane of the east tunnel in which there will be two-way working on those occasions. There is no evidence that that practice is unsafe. Two-way working in the tunnels is normal practice when one of the Dartford tunnels is closed for maintenance.
      Up to 1980, there was only one tunnel which operated with two-way traffic for 17 years, during which 140 million vehicles used the tunnel. Motorists will be informed by signs further back along the M25 when restrictions are in force. Nearer the tunnel, there will be gantry signs showing which lanes are closed. Such signs are common on the motorway network. If wind-susceptible traffic is being diverted, special signs will be switched on. There will be manual supervision of the entire process by the people who operate the crossing. There will not be interviewing of drivers, as there is at the Severn bridge, and any vehicle which appears to be wind-susceptible will be directed off the bridge. On the Kent side, it is practicable to ensure that traffic mixes again safely.
      It will be possible to divert all the bridge traffic into the east tunnel if the bridge has to close. It will be for the

      81
      crossing manager to decide which of those facilities he would use on any occasion. At night, for example, with light traffic, it might be simpler to close the bridge and divert all traffic.
      The total crossing offers great flexibility. The bridge provides a fallback if there are problems in the tunnels and the present tunnel management, the police and motoring organisations regard the use of the tunnels as a perfectly practicable and acceptable way in which to deal with problems on the bridge. Some details remain to be settled, and we shall speak again to them and to local highway authorities. It is not possible to do this at any other crossing. Everywhere else, a long diversion is necessary if the bridge cannot be used. That is one of the reasons why the Government are considering wind-shielding on the second Severn crossing.
      The Select Committee heard evidence from the petitioners to the effect that the present bridge design could be adapted for £5 million to £6 million and that there will be no more than a few weeks' delay in design. The nature of the adaptation proposed was, in our view, questionable. Substantial last-minute alterations should not be made to a major bridge design without taking great care. That view is now confirmed independently by a Danish designer — Mr. Aksel Frandsen — who has no connection with the Department or DRCC. The full report is in the Library. There is a brief summary of it in the response.
      He confirmed that if there is to be full wind-shielding of the kind proposed by the petitioners, there must be a fundamental redesign of the bridge deck. He also confirmed that the delay estimated by DRCC—18 to 21 months — for redesign and extra construction time is realistic, although two or three months might be shaved off with luck. The estimated cost of full shielding varies between £15·25 million and £18·75 million, depending on the design of the bridge in relation to the present toll booths. Nobody can be sure of the exact cost at this stage, but it must be of this order.
      Whether the lower or the higher of the two estimates of cost increase is taken, there would have to be amendments to the toll regime provided in the Bill, because it would no longer satisfy the cash flow conditions stipulated. In simple terms, DRCC would not have enough cash in the early years of operation to service its debts to those who are to finance construction of the bridge. To restore the current expectation that tolls would cease after 14 or 15 years and continue for a maximum of 20 years, an increase of about 6 per cent. in the real level tolls would be required.
      Dr. John Reid: How can the Minister calculate that the difference between income and expenditure in the early years will be too tight for the toll regime when DRCC could not give the Select Committee any estimate of its income in the early years or for any given year? Does he have information which has been produced since the Select Committee met, or was there information available which DRCC did not make available to the Select Committee?
      Mr. Bottomley: It is generally accepted that calculations were made to get to the 14 or 15-year estimate in the original proposal. I imagine that that was accepted by the Select Committee.
      Dr. Reid: I think that the Minister said that the differential would be tight in the early years. I am not talking about the 15-year sum. I am asking how he can tell the House that, in any one of the early years, the income would be insufficient to meet the DRCC's requirements if that company cannot give us its estimate of income in any of those early years.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Bottomley: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has gone through more of this than I have, at least in the Select Committee—I have had it somewhat at secondhand. If we take as the base line the calculation on the original estimated cost and take the flow of revenue before the bridge is open as a given level and add, say, £16 million to the cost of providing the bridge before there can be extra capacity, it is quite clear that the difference between interest payments and revenue must provide a great effect. I do not know whether I put it sufficiently clearly to explain it, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman has another point in mind.
      Dr. Reid: No, I have not. I am asking the Minister a simple question. If he does not know the income for any of those early years, how can he tell me whether the bridge will run at a profit, at a loss or how tight it will be? If we do not have that fact in the equation, we cannot assert what the Minister asserted. If, however, the Minister has the information necessary to make that assertion, he must have information which was unavailable to DRCC when the Select Committee met, because the company refused to give us that information.
      Mr. Bottomley: I think that the hon. Gentleman may be pushing the point in rather more detail than the debate needs.
      Dr. Reid: It is a crucial question, is it not?
      Mr. Bottomley: It has been asserted that tolls would have to rise by 6 per cent. in real terms. Whether that is 5.5 per cent. or 6.5 per cent. is not at this point directly significant. The fact that there would have to be extra income to fund the extra spending should be accepted on both sides of the House.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: The general proposition, that if more money is spent more money must be collected and therefore the toll regime may have to be re-examined, is common sense and clear. What puzzles us is that the Minister asserted that, in the early years of the crossing, the toll regime would be too tight to warrent the additional expenditure. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) is trying to find out why that information was not available to the Select Committee.
      Mr. Bottomley: I hesitate to repeat myself, but the level of income does not affect the assertion that an extra, say, £16 million of costs adds significantly to the capital cost of providing the bridge. In the early years, the debt rises dramatically, as has happened with several other bridges funded by tolls. In the later years, it is less relevant because, if the early years are under control, the later years look after themselves.
      To what extent DRCC was able to say it did or did not know precisely what the revenue would be depends on the amount of traffic. If traffic rose at 17 per cent. a year, it is possible to calculate, at any given level of toll, what the

      83
      income will be. It is also possible to estimate what change must be made to the debts that need servicing by looking at the capital cost. It seems to me as simple as that at that level of analysis. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman needs to illustrate a case, if he accepts the suggestion that an increased capital sum would be needed for redesign and for wind-shielding, he will be able to argue that in a speech and I shall try to respond to it, but I think that we have probably taken the matter as far as we can at this stage.
      It is unlikely to be possible to amend the Bill to provide for this increase without readvertising the amendments and inviting petitions in respect of them. We would have to question whether such a solution offered the best value for money. The Select Committee considered the costs of and the benefits to be gained from wind-shielding. The petitioners carried out some cost-benefit analysis. We have, too.
      In our latest calculations, we assume that the estimates of wind forecast in the annex to this response will be borne out in practice and that restrictions would be imposed at the same wind speeds as they are at the Severn. We have carried out a careful analysis of the delays to traffic that that would cause during the next 30 years before and after tolls come to an end. The result was strongly negative, indicating that full wind-shielding was not justified on economic grounds. One of the reasons for that was the substantial cost to traffic in delays while the redesign took place. The capital cost did not match the savings either.
      Mr. Terry Dicks: How recent was the investigation, and who carried it out?
      Mr. Bottomley: I think that I might wait until I have heard the rest of my hon. Friend's speech before answering that question.
      Members of the Select Committee will be aware that this is not an exact science. Widely differing views were put to the Select Committee and, understandably enough, it made its decision. During the past two months, the Government have had the benefit of thinking through these matters again. In the light of the Select Committee's hearings and taking further advice, the Government have come to a judgment different from that of the majority of the Select Committee and have been confirmed in their view by evidence that is now available. Given all the evidence, we cannot justify the extra cost and delay for the rare occasions on which restrictions will be necessary.
      I am content to be held responsible for this decision. I carry the can. We are asking the House to accept the amendment not simply because of the delay and the cost, or to assist the policy of private financing, or because we are the friends of anyone, but because it is right.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: We see before us a fascinating example of what happens to Government buiness that is mixed up with the hybrid Bill procedure, but a clause stand part debate might be a more appropriate time at which to discuss whether the procedure is a good one.
      Let me first associate myself with the tribute paid to hon. Members who served on the Select Committee—both for their perseverence in the many hours through which they sat and for their close attention to detail. It is clear from an examination of the minutes of evidence that the decision to add the words that the amendment seeks to remove was not made capriciously. The Select
      84
      Committee members did not do it because they felt a bit upset about getting up early after a bad night; they did it because they had examined the evidence seriously, and believed that there was a serious point to be made.
      To be fair, the Minister has conceded that the Select Committee arrived at its decision having weighed the evidence in the balance. It must be difficult, with such technical matters, to decide which experts are giving the best advice. Before we consider that, however, the Minister must answer one or two questions.
      We can argue about the quantity and severity of the problems on the Severn bridge, but it is a fact that problems have been caused by lane closures and the restriction of movement by high-sided vehicles because of wind pressures. Given those problems, it is astonishing that, when it was decided to go ahead with the crossing, the effect of wind turbulence on traffic never entered the Department's mind. Apparently the design brief contained no recommendation for an analysis or appreciation of those effects, although everyone knows that wind turbulence is caused by high-sided towers or blocks.
      The Minister has described his recent experience at the Severn, when he stepped from behind a pillar and was nearly blown off his feet and either he or one of his officials nearly lost his spectacles. As is no doubt common knowledge among architects, wind breaks sometimes have to be erected in high-rise housing blocks where people walk out of the door and are nearly blown off their feet. There is considerable debate about wind turbulence in technical journals: surely the designers of bridges must know about its effects.
      After the hours of debate in the Select Committee, and the responses that it received, it is not good enough for the Minister to tell us merely that the Select Committee has a point, and that the Government will meet that point just so far by introducing partial wind-shielding. That means that drivers of high-sided vehicles would gradually find the pressure on the sides of their vehicles increasing, and be able to control it, without being suddenly blown off course by a blast of wind. The Minister must tell us first why the initial design brief did not examine the problem, and secondly why he is turning down the idea of full wind-shielding.
      Mr. Dicks: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a spokesman for Mott, Hay and Anderson, agents to the Government, said that wind-shielding was just a matter of weather forecasting? That was the emphasis that he placed on the need for a close examination of the problem.
      Mr. Hughes: I accept that that was what was said. In that context, the paragraph in the Select Committee report which stated that the Committee was extremely unhappy about the way in which the evidence was presented has even more point.
      We must consider the short-term and the long-term future of the bridge. I fully accept the point that I think the Minister is making: the need for the river crossing is urgent and it is long overdue. The present two tunnels cannot cope any longer, and something must be done to relieve the congestion. On the other hand, if the Minister has got it wrong and the bridge will be closed to high-sided vehicles more frequently than he would like to think, so that vehicles must go back down the twin tunnels—one of which, presumably, will have to be closed to traffic

      85
      going in one direction, so that traffic can move in the other direction — how much delay and congestion will that cause? In a sense, it is a question of what is acceptable.
      There is an old saying used by fishermen, and indeed seamen of all kinds: why spoil the ship for a hap'orth of tar? Is it reasonable to accept restrictions, given the problems that might be caused in the future? We are not speaking about five, 10 or even 20 years from now. We should consider the forecasts of increased traffic being generated in London, and the fact that every road improvement scheme seems to generate its own traffic over and above any official forecasts. It is almost a law of nature that any such forecast can be multiplied by x. The traffic generates itself. If the Select Committee's advice is not taken, extra congestion may build up to reach the proportions that are currently generated in the area, possibly for longer than the Minister would suggest.
      I appreciate that, when it comes to accepting the advice of experts, in a sense you pays your money and you takes your choice, but a risk is being taken. I do not refer to the safety of the bridge; the safety of the traffic is at issue. The number of days for which the bridge will be closed will affect the amount of disruption that is caused.
      Mr. Tim Janman: The projected number of hours of lane closure for the east London river crossing, only eight miles up river, is 25 hours a year. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that the projection for the Dartford-Thurrock crossing of 24 hours a year is likely to be inaccurate?
      Mr. Hughes: I believe that long periods were suggested. One figure suggested was 17 hours of lane restrictions a week, which I think translates to 880 hours a year. Other evidence suggests a figure of 550 hours a year, or 10 or 11 hours a week. That might take place in the middle of the night when there is not much traffic around anyway. If there are 17 hours of lane restrictions a week—only time will tell whether that is accurate—hon. Members who were so vociferous in their arguments against wind-shielding may find themselves under heavy pressure from their constituents, who have remained quiet so far because they have not thought it necessary to make a fuss.
      Mr. Janman: I asked the hon. Gentleman why he felt that, given the projection of 25 hours of lane closures a year at the east London river crossing only eight miles away, there was any reason to believe that the projection of only 24 hours of lane closures a year at Dartford was inaccurate. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the consultancy firm that projected the 500 hours of lane closures a year at the Dartford-Thurrock crossing projected half that number for a bridge across the Channel?
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Hughes: I shall not be diverted into a debate about what would happen with a bridge across the Channel. Had that company won the design and provided for no wind-shielding, there would have been one hell of a row, as we all know.
      The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) asked why I should reject the expert advice that there would be 25 hours of lane closures a year at the east London river crossing compared with 24 hours a year at Dartford. I suspect that when we deal with the east London river crossing in detail we shall have the same argument because different experts will come forward with different views.
      Dr. Reid: As an illustration, does my hon. Friend accept that the Government's projections for a cross-Channel bridge, which was of similar height and was to cross an exposed channel, referred to lane restrictions which turned out to be less than their predictions for the Dartford-Thurrock crossing?
      Mr. Hughes: I accept my hon. Friend's point, but I do not want to be diverted to a debate on the Channel crossing.
      There are many views on the exact number of hours of lane closures. I even concede a point which, I recollect, was not made by counsel in closing speeches. Even if there were a maximum of 17 hours of lane closures a week, much of that might be in the middle of the night, when there was not much traffic anyway, so I am almost giving half a point to the hon. Member for Thurrock. I should have thought that, if there were 17 hours of lane closures a week, that should be taken seriously. The Government have done so. That is why they have said that they do not want the words in the Bill. I hope that the Minister said that they will provide partial wind-shielding. At one stage he almost said that the Government would consider doing that. We must get it right.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: Partial wind-shielding will be provided.
      Mr. Hughes: It will be, provided the House does not reject the Government amendment.
      We must consider whether to accept expert advice. All members of the Committee suggested that wind-shielding could be provided by light plastic windshields of sufficient strength to do the job without adding to the weight of the bridge. I am inclined to accept the view that, if wind-shielding is provided—whatever the materials—redesign will be needed because of the effect on the bridge's stability. One cannot get away with saying that wind-shielding can be provided for the whole length of the bridge without affecting the design. If we believe that the wind will affect high-sided vehicles, causing them to veer, it is obvious that wind-shielding will lead to bending stress on the bridge, which must be considered in redesign. I am prepared to accept that if there is to be full wind-shielding there must be a full redesign.
      I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) will pursue the point of the early years of a toll regime versus the later years. I accept that if more capital, and therefore more borrowing, are required, resulting in greater costs, there will have to be a new toll regime. I do not understand why that bothers the Minister. If the product is better and the customer is not diverted as often as he could be, he might be perfectly happy to pay an increased toll for the better service. I do not think that it makes any difference whether the tolls are collected over 20 or 25 years so long as the balance is right.
      The Bill says that the crossing has 20 years to get its money back with tolls. If the money is recovered within 15 years, ownership of the bridge reverts to the Department of Transport. If at the end of 20 years the tolls have not paid for the cost of the bridge, it still reverts to the Department of Transport, and the banks or whoever put up the money have to stand the loss. It is a risk. If we overload the cost of the bridge, we should give the company another five years to get its money back or allow it to impose a higher toll to get its money back within the same period. Risk capital is involved.

      87
      The Minister is in a dilemma. He wants the bridge to be built by risk capital, but he is frightened lest he scare the risk capital away.
      Mr. Janman: Although the cost element is important, far more important is the delay, as the hon. Gentleman accurately stated. Does he think it worth delaying a major project, which is urgently needed, for 15 to 18 months simply because there will be 24 hours of lane closures a year, much of it in the dead of night when there is hardly any traffic?
      Mr. Hughes: I shall answer that question in my last sentences.
      If the toll regime must be changed, that can readily be done. There is the choice whether to increase tolls or give the company a longer period in which to get its money back. We must decide one way or the other. It comes down to whether a delay—a delay of 18 to 21 months may be reasonable; I do not know—is worth having to get the project right. The answer is yes.
      I suspect that, if the normal planning procedures had been followed, the bridge would not have been built for another 14 years. The Government have chosen to cut corners by having this legislation considered under the hybrid Bill procedure. They should not cut corners to the extent of arbitrarily deciding that 18 months is too long to wait to get the job right and to ensure that there is not great traffic disruption. It is always difficult to forecast. I suppose that I am safe to forecast that I shall not be a Member in 20 years' time. I have no intention of emulating my predecessor, who stayed here until he was 83, which in my case would be much more than 20 years more in the House.
      I am willing to forecast that if the bridge is built according to the design put forward by the Minister, there will be so much disruption and concern that within 15 to 20 years—possibly even sooner—there will be demands for partial wind-shielding to be converted into full wind-shielding, however that is done. Perhaps — I do not know whether I am making a defence for the Minister—bridge design will have advanced in 50 years' time and that will be a possibility.
      We have no Whip present. I do not know whether the Minister can say the same for the Government; the danger is that Government business is whipped. Having seen the evidence, and having discussed and thought about it, I do not believe that we should support the Government's amendment. We should do what the Select Committee did and insist on full wind-shielding.
      Mr. Sydney Chapman: I am grateful for being called because I was Chairman of the Select Committee that examined the Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister has reminded us that it met for more than 20 sitting days. According to my calculations, it was in session for 111 hours. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's words of approbation, and I should like to say how much I appreciated the assistance of my hon. Friends the Members for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), for Chorley (Mr. Dover) and for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) and the hon. Members for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) and for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway). I note that all the members of the Committee are in their places tonight.
      88
      To help the House, I shall make one or two points to show the problems that the Committee faced. As has been said, there was complete disagreement on the basic elements leading to the judgment whether the bridge should have wind-shielding. There was complete disagreement among the experts who were called by the promoters and petitioners. Somebody might say, "You must be a rather naive person if you feel that experts will not disagree." The other Members of the Committee will support me when I say that the disagreement was so fundamental and complete that it caused us great concern.
      The disagreement was in three sectors. Although many years ago I qualified as an architect, I am a complete layman in the technical details of bridge design. There was disagreement about the frequency of high winds. There was a 50 per cent. disagreement between the two expert witnesses called by the petitioners. There was more than a 50 per cent. disagreement on the frequency of high winds between the most conservative estimate of the petitioners and the statutes that were given by the promoters. The leading expert witness called by the petitioners — the prestigious Essex and Kent county councils—was none other than Dr. Nicholas Cook, who is the senior principal scientific officer and wind engineering section head at the Department of the Environment's Building Research Establishment. The petitioners therefore called the leading Government expert.
      There was complete disagreement about what the delay would be before the bridge was completed. As my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said, the petitioners said that the delay would be only six weeks, and the promoters said that it would be about 15 to 18 months. As to the extra cost — my hon. Friend the Minister reminded us of the figures—the petitioners said that it would be about £5·4 million and that there would be no need for a fundamental redesign of the bridge. The promoters said that it would cost between £15,250,000 and £18,750,000 and that it would involve a fundamental redesign of the bridge.
      I do not think that the Committee was helped by one or two aspects of the promoters' case — the promoters being the Government and the concessionaires. The promoters were reluctant to give information about the design of the bridge when it was requested by the Committee.
      The promoters—I want to put their case as fairly as I can and I hope that, as Chairman of the Committee, I am being impeccably neutral — claimed commercial confidentiality, and they may have been right. However, that begs two questions. The lesser question is, at what point does commercial confidentiality not need to be kept? They had been appointed to build the bridge. For how long do they need to keep that commercial confidentiality, which presumably would go as soon as construction of the bridge began?
      7.45 pm
      The more important question that one should ask—and it is right that the Chairman of the Committee should do so — is, if the promoters are using parliamentary procedures—it is the Select Committee's job to hear the evidence of the petitioners—surely we are entitled, for the benefit of the public, to demand information so that the matter can be properly examined.
      Given the scale and technical nature of the petitioners' case, I believe that we should have been given other

      89
      additional information—not only the information about the design of the bridge—by the promoters. I shall give one example. We did not have annex A, which was attached to the Minister's response and which gave information of wind speeds at 13 major road bridges in Britain and the details of the traffic restrictions that are imposed on them. While a little of that information dribbled out over the 15 days, it would have been helpful to have that table.
      Two matters have become apparent to me, and members of the Committee can disagree with me if they wish. I believe that, because of the detail and complexity of the technical evidence, we should have had, from the outset, a technical adviser or specialist who could have guided us and saved a little time. The time that the Committee took had nothing to do with the competence of its Chairman, but everything to do with the pace set by the petitioners' counsel, who I gather was on a rather larger salary than the combined salaries of the Committee. Surely we should have had, from the outset, that technical advice, which the more general departmental Select Committees can call upon. I leave that thought as a possible change that might be made in future procedures.
      The fact that the experts would disagree profoundly must have been realised before the Committee met. Even though we took the decision to hear the petitioners' case on wind-shielding on 28 October—at first the promoters said that we had no locus to do so, so we had to take evidence on that — there were six weeks between us making our decision and the end of the Committee proceedings. The promoters were slow to respond, at least.
      At best—I must say this to my hon. Friend the Minister—the independent advice that my hon. Friend has since acquired should have been instigated shortly after 28 October at the latest. It is only two months since the Committee reported. Given the time scale of six weeks between 28 October and the last sitting of the Committee, the promoters could have been more ready and willing to provide us with the information that we needed.
      Whatever the merits or otherwise of wind-shielding the bridge, it was little wonder that the Committee, by a majority of five to one, took the decision that it did, given these circumstances. As Chairman of the Select Committee, I did not vote. In the parliamentary tradition, I shall continue to adopt impeccable neutrality tonight. When I fall off the fence on to the bridge, whether or not it is wind-shielded, I hope that I shall fall on the right side of it and that it is a soft landing.
      Dr. Reid: Much as the Minister would like it, I do not intend to attempt to condense 111 hours of evidence into a 10-minute speech. That is beyond even the abstractive powers of the various hon. Members who were asked to sit on the Committee. It should not be necessary to repeat what took 111 hours to weigh up in the 21 days on which we sat in judgment, but that is what the Government are asking us to do today. Although it was an arduous task to sit on the Committee for 21 days, I note as I look around the Strangers Gallery that there must be some people who are gluttons for punishment. There are one or two familiar faces. Such are the passions that the issue has aroused.
      The Minister's contribution was no counterbalance to the tons of evidence that the Committee had to sift during 111 hours. Indeed, if we put on the scales of justice or of rationality the contribution of that 21 days, along with the
      90
      Minister's case, which, with great respect, appeared to be an anecdote about how his official lost his spectacles on the Severn bridge, we would find the Government's case this time around as wanting as their previous case.
      It may be of interest to hon. Members who have remained in the Chamber to know that I have no subjective interest in the matter. The Dartford-Thurrock crossing is not continually in the minds or on the lips of my constituents. It is not a matter of common discussion in the bars of Bellshill or on the streets of Shotts. I have no interest other than the public interest. It is obviously not of ideological interest to me or to my party, as hon. Members can see, judging from the Benches behind me. The proposed wind shield is not even to be constructed of steel, so, from that point of view, no one can accuse me of having a localised interest.
      I ask the Minister and other hon. Members to accept that my interest is purely that of any hon. Member who is put on a Select Committee—that is, to pursue the public interest for the best possible reasons and to the fullest possible extent, to ensure that Parliament defends the interests of people outside the House who feel that their interests have not so far been served by the Government. That was the function, approach and philosophy of the Select Committee throughout its deliberations.
      In their response to the Committee's report, the Government were fulsome in their praise. They referred to a long and arduous series of sittings spread over 21 days. They thanked us for our full and painstaking examination of the issues, but then said, "By the way, we reject every recommendation except one." That is the handy little recommendation, in which we happened to say that the presentation of the Government's case was abysmal. Of course it was abysmal, but the Government find it handy to accept that recommendation because, in so doing, they can say, "Really, it was nothing to do with the weight of the evidence, it was merely the presentation." The long-term injury for the Government is to mistake the shadow for the substance.
      It is true that the presentation of the Government's case was extremely poor, but even if it had been much better, I am utterly convinced that the evidence would still have been in favour of the plaintiffs. The Chairman of the Committee referred to 111 hours and 21 days, of which not less than 15 days were spent on the wind shield issue alone. After 15 days of examination and cross-examination the Select Committee concluded by a majority of five to one in favour of the addition of a wind shield on the bridge.
      Why should there have been a five to one majority? Why should an hon. Member such as myself, with no remote connection with the subject and with no subjective interest in the outcome, who supports the need for the crossing, as do other hon. Members, who appreciates the need to relieve as soon as possible traffic conditions and inconvenience in the area, who is aware of the long delays that motorists suffer at present, and who is fully cognisant of the Government's claim that wind-shielding would entail extra delays and costs in the construction programme, decide that there should be a wind shield on the bridge? Right hon. and hon. Members must decide that matter for themselves.
      Despite all the resources at their command, the best legal brains that money could buy — apparently, the plaintiffs were more up-market with their QC—and with the assistance of not only the reservoir of talent that

      91
      resides in the Civil Service but the backing of a major financial and industrial concern and the expertise of the private sector, the Government utterly failed to provide the Select Committee with a case.
      Mr. Janman: Is the hon. Gentleman willing to comment on the fact that the QC employed by the petitioners was certainly on a high salary and the projected rate increase in the county of Essex this year is 17·8 per cent.?
      Dr. Reid: I cannot comment on rates. I can certainly say that if the QC was on an extremely high salary, and considering the way in which the evidence was presented, he deserved every penny of it. If the matter was judged purely in terms of convincing a Committee, he should have been paid 10 times the salary that the Government paid their QC.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: I appreciate that members of the Select Committee will have their say, but it may be helpful if we accept that the way in which the Government presented their case is on trial, not the Select Committee and not any counsel for either side.
      Dr. Reid: I accept that. I was merely responding to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman).
      We have already paid tribute to the Chairman of the Committee. He conducted himself in an impeccable manner throughout the deliberations. He is not only an impeccable Chairman but an extremely polite man. He said that the presentation of the Government's case lacked something. He said:
      "We felt there was a lack of readiness … by the Government … to make available necessary technical and financial information which would have greatly assisted the Committee".
      That was the understatement of the year.
      At times the Committee descended into Whitehall farce as the Government became enmeshed in an ever-thickening web of apparent obstruction, which any objective Member could only have concluded was intended to obfuscate the real issue of whether the evidence supported the case for wind-shielding. For example, the famous design plans have been referred to. It may be of interest to hon. Members to know that, when the Committee first referred to the issue, the Government's initial case was that the plaintiffs had no locus.
      The Government presented their case, the Select Committee decided against them, and the plaintiffs presented their case. Remember that the Government's case was that there would be undue delays and cost, because any wind-shielding would require a fundamental redesign of the bridge. The problem was that the Government would not release the bridge designs to the plaintiffs or, indeed, to the Select Committee. Therefore, it became impossible to estimate whether the Government were telling the truth. If one does not have the designs, it is difficult how a wind shield will affect redesign. Faced with that, the Committee asked the Government for the reasons.
      The first reason that we were given was commercial confidentiality. That rather perplexed the Committee, because, as far as we were aware, the bridge will be owned by the Government. If the bridge is owned by the Government, we presume that the designs are owned by the Government. So we overruled them on commercial
      92
      confidentiality. But during the arguments on commercial confidentiality, the Government told us explicitly that there was a danger that the designs might fall into the hands of our foreign competitors—especially, and not surprisingly, the West Germans. But despite the threats from the German bogeyman across the Channel, we overruled the Government on that point.
      8 pm
      The Government then told us that even if confidentiality did not apply, it would be impossible to produce the designs because they did not exist. They said that it would take four to five weeks to put them together. That raised the obvious question: if the designs did not exist, how could the Government tell us that a wind shield would require a fundamental redesigning of the bridge? A simple question, one might think. Again, we overruled the Government and asked for the designs to be produced at short notice. We were then told that they could not be produced at short notice because the Government had to refer to the designer, the mysterious Dr. Homburg who—surprise, surprise—is a West German. Remember the people against whom we had to protect the designs' confidentiality? It appears that the designers were a team of West Germans.
      Faced with that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you might have excused the objective member of the Select Committee for thinking that something was going on. That example sums up all the obstructive tactics that were used. In retrospect, it is easy to see why the Government were so reluctant to produce the evidence. The weight of the testimony and the evidence completely undermined the Government's case.
      It is astounding that one of the most telling contributions against the Government's case and in favour of wind-shielding came from Dr. Cook, a Government employee and one of their foremost experts in wind—outside the Chamber, at least—who had not even been consulted on the matter. No one had thought to lift the telephone and say to the Government's top export—
      [Interruption.] I will not reflect on his future. He may be an export at some stage. No one thought to telephone the top expert in wind and say to him, "We are building this great construction from Dartford to Thurrock. It is a fair old height and a massive size. Do you think we may have problems with wind?" We had the irony of the plaintiffs bringing their case against the Government and producing as one of their most telling witnesses an expert employed by the Government.
      The essence of Dr. Cook's testimony was that, contrary to the Government's claim, the site of the Dartford-Thurrock crossing was wind-prone. The hon. Member for Thurrock asked earlier about the evidence in relation to a similar bridge nearby, but the existing basis of calculation of wind, which took into account general wind patterns, was not detailed enough to allow for localised conditions. That could mean that the Dartford-Thurrock crossing would be much more exposed to dangerous winds than a similar bridge, perhaps in the same general geographical area but not in the precise locality. That information could have been obtained by a simple telephone call.
      I do not accept the limited wind-shielding that the Minister mentioned. It is a coincidence that out of the blue limited wind-shielding was added to the plans for the bridge within three days of the start of the Select Committee's deliberations. A discussion that had been

      93
      continuing for some months, with the plaintiffs asking for wind-shielding for more than a year previously, suddenly and miraculously came to a conclusion within 72 hours of the Committee's starting to ask questions about wind-shielding. It was a pre-emptive strike.
      Nor can I accept that the wind shield would be a superfluous extra. As the Minister said, it is being actively considered for the second Severn crossing. I cannot accept that the Government—
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: Limited wind-shielding is being considered for the existing Severn crossing. Wind-shielding is being considered for the second crossing. It might be helpful to establish that.
      Dr. Reid: I thought that that was what I said.
      I cannot accept the Government's report, which simply goes through every issue that the petitioners have mentioned and replies to them. It is almost as though the members of the Committee were sitting in a time warp for 21 days. If all that will happen is that the petitioners' questions will be answered in the House, ignoring completely the decisions of the Select Committee, it might as well not have sat. The Government employed all the arguments, bar one, in testimony before the Committee. They acted as defence counsel during the trial, but when the jury found against them, they sacked the jury and said, "We do not like the decision. We will not only be defence counsel, but we shall set ourselves up as jury, judge and final court of appeal."
      That not only undermines the Government's case on this crossing but seriously undermines the entire system of Select Committees. Of course, as the Minister will say, the Government are not obliged to accept the decisions of Select Committees. But they are obliged to give more weight to the Select Committee's deliberations than they appear from their response to have done.
      The Minister said that the issue is one of traffic management. But that is the point of contention. The Government cannot solve a problem merely by reiterating the assertion on which they based their principal argument. The Committee, having heard the evidence, decided that it was not merely a question of traffic management. The issue before the House is whether high winds will cause the closure of the bridge or the restriction of lanes so frequently as to undermine the reason for constructing the crossing.
      Mr. Janman indicated assent.
      Dr. Reid: I see the hon. Gentleman nodding. I do not know where he got the estimate of 24 hours. It may horrify him to know that the average estimate of the plaintiffs, which was lower than Dr. Cook's estimate, was 550 hours a year of possible lane restrictions and closures. If the objective is to alleviate traffic problems between Dartford and Thurrock, the hon. Gentleman must ask himself whether, in the eagerness to construct the crossing, the company will not be constructing a white elephant.
      I do not accept the argument on costs. The Minister said—he had no evidence to back his assertion, because I asked him, as I asked the Dartford River Crossing Company—that it would be impossible to encompass within the existing toll regime the additional cost of about £15 million to £30 million. He contended that, in the early years, the income would be insufficient, given the extra that would be necessary to pay the interest.
      94
      I make two comments on that assertion. First, the Dartford River Crossing Company was asked specifically by me and others to provide an estimate of its income for the early years. If a company cannot provide an estimate of income, it cannot say that that income will be insufficient to meet extra costs. It could not provide such an estimate, and nor could the Minister tonight. He said that if one adds £18 million to an existing bill, it is bound to be more at the end of the day. We are all grateful for that intellectual insight. It is one which the Committee would accept.
      Even adding the £18 million and its interest to the existing moneys that have to be collected in tolls—we discussed that evidence in Committee — there is still sufficient leeway without any vast increase within the 20-year toll regime to collect that additional money. On present estimates, without taking into account the wind-shielding, the cost could be recouped in 14, 15 or 16 years. With the additional money it would be a bit of a tight squeeze, but it could be recouped within the 20-year toll regime. In other words, the global sum could be recouped without any major changes in the term of the toll regime.
      The question is simple. Is it worth delaying the project for 18 months and paying an extra £15 million to render efficient for the purposes for which it is created a bridge that may last for well over a century? We are not talking about 24 hours a year delay, but 550 or possibly 880 hours. I contend, and the Select Committee contends, that 18 months delay and £15 million are justified for a bridge that will last over a century.
      The Minister said that the Government had reconsidered the matter since the Select Committee reported, but I have seen no evidence of that. Indeed, from his response it is clear that, far from having reconsidered the matter, the Government have stuck obstinately to the original decision at the time of the initial tender. I do not know whether it is collective loyalty to the Department and decisions that have already been taken; whether it is sheer embarrassment; whether they are utterly and sincerely convinced that we, as well as their experts and the weight of evidence, are wrong; whether it is from friendship or loyalty to Trafalgar House; or whether it is because the contract has already been awarded.
      Parliament, in the shape of the Select Committee, has served the plaintiffs, the public and future users of the Dartford-Thurrock crossing well. Unfortunately, the Government have served them ill. I am sure that the Minister has a marvellous future before him and I agree with one of his statements. He said that he would carry the can. He will indeed. I hope for his sake that we are wrong, because if we are correct—and I believe that we are—it will not be a can that he will carry during his career but a large albatross around his neck.
      Mr. Dicks: First, I declare an interest. In 1985 I had an interest in Taylor Woodrow. When I served on the Select Committee I was not aware that Taylor Woodrow had made a bid for the original Dartford crossing, but my interest is registered in the section that deals with Members' interests, and has been since 1985. I was appointed to the Committee by the Committee of Selection, which must have been aware of that background.
      I was the only member of the Committee who at the outset felt that the Government's case was correct and that the petitioners had no locus. I felt that we should not listen

      95
      to the case put by Kent and Essex county councils. How wrong I was. I am pleased to say that, and that my colleagues who decided that we should hear their case were right.
      All of us, without exception, want to see this bridge in place, and we were all anxious to deal with the matter as quickly as possible. Had there been an obvious way to do so, we would have taken it, so before anybody says that we set out on this long voyage deliberately to have fun and games at the Government's expense, let me assure them that the opposite was the case. We had hoped to deal with the matter in a few days, but it took 21 days and almost 112 hours.
      If one were malicious, one would say that the Government's presentation contains lies, and damned lies, but that would be most unfair. Yet, having noted the lack of details in the presentation, I would not be keen to have the Department of Transport, Mott, Hay and Anderson and Trafalgar House build a bridge with my grandson's Lego.
      I have listened to try to find out where the truth lies, but I am left with a great deal of scepticism and anxiety, although it is private money. We are all aware of what is going on. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) described well how we had asked for information, but it was not forthcoming, for the various reasons that he set out, until we pressed for it. That was just one of about half a dozen instances that have given rise to my scepticism. I accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) quite properly took a different view, but the longer the Committee sat, the more sceptical most of us became. We were shown evidence and given views which were subsequently changed. We were not absolutely sure what was happening.
      8.15 pm
      I was concerned that we did not have access to Herr Helmut Homburg—that is a joke in itself. In his profile it said that the laws in Germany during the 1930s were changed to enable him to start his rising career as a bridge builder. We were not able to invite to the Select Committee the man who knew all the technical details and has special information that the Select Committee should have; nor could we question him and find out his thinking. Only by exerting pressure did we manage to persuade the Department to send a telex to Germany asking him what he thought about wind shields. His four or five line reply was that he did not want them "on my bridge". We thought that it was the Government's bridge.
      I am a little uneasy about talking about the quality of the people working for the Government, Mott, Hay and Anderson, and Trafalgar House. The project manager, who is a charming gentleman, sat for many hours giving us the benefit of his wisdom. My colleagues discovered his background: he has limited experience, primarily from highway maintenance, he has never built a bridge, and he has no experience of the impact of wind on a bridge. He said that from walking around Dartford and perhaps crossing the Severn bridge he felt in his bones that the position was not too bad. He had a feeling inside him. We are talking a £82 million project. We asked him why he had not approached Dr. Cook, a Government employee with
      96
      great expertise, for help at the beginning. He had never thought about it. Dr. Cook works in a Department and is paid by the Government.
      Mr. Janman: Does my hon. Friend think that that may have something to do with the fact that there is no major estuarial crossing in the world with full wind-shielding?
      Mr. Dicks: With great respect to my hon. Friend, not at all. If one is to build a bridge, one should receive the best and most comprehensive advice possible. Essex and Kent county councils brought a witness who was a wind expert—not someone they found, but a man in a Government office. Yet central Government did not bother to ask one of their employees whose salary they pay. Nothing could be more stupid and unthinking.
      The project manager—nice chap that he is, indeed a charming man—was not qualified. He did not have the expertise, background or specialisation to handle this project. One wonders how on earth he got the job.
      I shall not stop there. I come now to the representatives of the agents. Although the contracts were up for tender for the job, no one was up for tender to be the agents. Why did Mott, Hay and Anderson get the job? The company did another job for the Department of Transport some time ago, so perhaps the Department thought that it was good and would have it back again. There was no competition, and it seemed to me—I am not an expert—that the Department had had a good job done by the company in the past and decided that it would bring it along and use it because it seemed pretty good.
      To judge from what we heard from the representative, his evidence was flawed, to say the least. He was unfamiliar with wind-shield techniques and could not distinguish one type from another. He turned to Dr. Cook for advice, but did not appear to like it or bother to follow it up. His attitude to wind expertise, about which he knew nothing, was cavalier and throwaway. He described it as nothing more than weather forecasting. If a leading member of the Government's agents plays down the importance of wind on a bridge, be it the Severn bridge or the Dartford-Thurrock crossing, in such a cavalier manner, it makes one wonder how they came to be the Government's agents and how that man came to be in charge of the presentation.
      In order to be fair to the three parties concerned, let us turn to Trafalgar House. It decided to bring along an accountant. He told us about his qualifications as a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, so we had hoped for some expertise from him. We asked if he had brought any figures along and he replied that he had not. We asked him how, if there was a delay, he would raise the money. He answered that he did not know how long that would take—possibly six months. We thought he was an accountant, but it turned out that he was not really one. He sounded like a Back-Bench Conservative Member doing what he was told when he was told to do it.
      We put in our report and the Government examined it. Chapter 17 of the response says:
      "The Government, as promoters of the Bill, assisted by the concessionnaires, presented the case in the way they thought most helpful to the Committee."
      Lies, damned lies and statements in the Minister's reply. There is no other way of putting it. If that was what the Government thought was the most helpful way, God help us if they wanted to be obstructive.
      "This reflected the obligation the Government felt to safeguard information which the concessionnaires considered would be of commercial value to a competitor."

      97
      The only information that the Government wanted to safeguard in their presentation to us was the information that would help us come to a full and proper conclusion in our deliberations. I do not hesitate to say that, and I shall not backtrack on it.
      We heard from the Minister in the report, and we heard it again today, that further investigations have led the Government to believe that the Committee was wrong. We sat for 111 hours—21 days. The Standing Committee—God bless the Members and their cotton socks—sat for two hours—
      Mr. Den Dover: Less than one.
      Mr. Dicks: In that case, I do not bless their cotton socks.
      Mr. Tony Lloyd: It is perhaps worth while telling the hon. Gentleman that he will strengthen his case if he realises that one of the reasons why the Standing Committee sat for less than an hour was that we did not have the Government's replies to the important points raised in the Select Committee, so there was no point in delaying the Committee at that stage.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: We also did not have my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks).
      Mr. Dicks: It was a clever move on the part of the Government to keep everyone in the dark until the Standing Committee had risen, and then to deliver their response. The Department of Transport, as we discovered during our deliberations, over-estimated the toll income on bridges in the north—it got that wrong—and underestimated traffic on the M25—it got that wrong, too. But it was clever enough to ensure that the information needed by hon. Members to make our case conveniently arrived after the Standing Committee has risen.
      I wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport on 19 December asking for a full inquiry into how the contract was awarded and how it had progressed ever since. Something about it smelt wrong. I have received an acknowledgment, but yet again there was no answer to the points that I raised, except that the Minister indirectly replied to the Select Committee that the Government had to be careful about these issues because of commercial confidentiality. With great respect to my hon. Friend—I have a high regard for his ability and for what he says and does — that is absolute bunkum. There is nothing to prevent the Government answering the questions that we raised about the way the matter has been handled. It is wrong to use confidentially in this way. The Minister, I, my hon. Friends and, I am sure, the people in the Department of Transport, know that.
      The Select Committee sat through all those hours and was painstaking about its questions. We argued among ourselves and delayed each other by asking so many questions. The Chairman was kind and patient, although once or twice he told some of us off. How can the Government listen to what we say and then, in a few days, reject virtually everything that criticised them, except for one bit, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) pointed out? There is something wrong with the way in which the whole thing has been handled. To say in the report, as the Government do, that they hope that an inquiry into the points raised will ensure that the presentation is better next time is not good enough.
      98
      I want to know why the goal posts were moved half way through the tendering process. I want to know how Mott. Hay and Anderson obtained the agent's post. Why is the project manager someone who should not be doing the job? Why did the man from Mott, Hay and Anderson know nothing about wind problems on the bridge? Why did the accountant not bring facts and figures with him? If that is the quality of person that the Government use in the Department of Transport, is it any wonder that they underestimate traffic on the M25 and overestimate tolls in the north of England? There is something wrong in the state of Denmark.
      I beg the Minister not only to learn lessons for the future, but to tell us what has been going on, why and who has been doing it. Where is the Government's latest information coming from, and who gives it to them? If it is coming from the same incompetent crew that has been advising the Government thus far, they can forget the advice as worthless.
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I am sorry that my voice is hoarse tonight; it is in poor form because it was in too good form on Saturday at Cardiff Arms park.
      I want to raise certain points that have not so far been covered. When my hon. Friends and I were first asked to serve on the Select Committee, we were all rather green, having been elected only in 1987. We were unfamiliar with some of the more arcane aspects of Commons procedure, so when the Whips approached us and told us that it was a great honour to serve on a Select Committee we rushed back to tell our hon. Friends of the new intake that we have been asked to serve on a Select Committee scrutinising private business. They asked what we had done wrong. I am still trying to find out, but it was a long job and we sat patiently. So green were we that we did not realise that the Government are allowed to score goals after the Select Committee has finished. I am glad that did not happen last Saturday. We scored a drop goal in injury time, but not after the whole match was over, which is essentially what the Government have done.
      We can all share some sense of grievance at the fact that the Government have pretended that the Select Committee never met. They have said that they will accept the point about presentation and the fact that they did not put their case well. However, that merely strengthens their resolve to ram their original conclusions down the throats of hon. Members. They claim that all that was wrong was that they made a few mix-ups and did not get their act together in time to have everything ready for the Committee. Perhaps they rushed things a little and did not put the best face on what was really a strong case. All that does not please those of us who served on the Select Committee. The health of the Select Committee procedure for private or hybrid business in which there is a strong Government interest must depend on the Government showing some respect for the conclusions reached by Select Committees. They have not done so on this occasion. They have accepted the bit that does not involve any change in making up their mind and reaching conclusions. They have said that they are sticking to their guns even though they were overturned in the Committee by a majority of five to one and took a fairly severe pasting in the Committee's final conclusions. We have to ask ourselves why that happened. It is not just a matter of presentation, because something fundamental was giving rise to disquiet the whole way through.

      99
      8.30 pm
      We are not discussing the principle of privatization—and the Opposition do not wish to raise that issue at this stage—and we are not considering privatisation of a key part of Britain's motorway infrastructure; we are debating whether the use of a design, build and finance contract for a key part of the M25 will give rise to any kind of substandard operation compared with what would have occurred if the Government had heeded to the Select Committee's conclusions.
      The Select Committee met and considered the evidence in extenso. We were laymen, except for one member of the Committee who was an engineer, and we found in favour of the petitioners on some fairly fundamental points in relation to the bridge design. We expect some notice to be taken of that and will be most unhappy if it is not. We also expect some notice to be taken of the way in which we went about our work. We put our best efforts into it. We do not expect it to be dismissed as if it did not happen. That is extremely worrying for everyone involved in the work of the House of Commons as a whole.
      This is a matter of concern not just for the seven of us on the Committee, who feel fairly aggrieved because the work that we put in may not have been noted in the way that one would expect, but for every hon. Member who will have to consider how the House is supposed to deal with the hybrid Bill procedure which combines Government and private interests. Are we supposed to pretend that the Committee goes through a charade of sitting for 122 hours because its Members have nothing better to do? Is it intended to be a real part of the examination of evidence which allows the Committee to draw conclusions?
      It is most unfortunate, when private companies and the Government combine on docks, harbours, roads and bridges and use the hydrid Bill procedure more and more, that the Goverment do not recognise that the essential countervailing part of that is that they must take notice of the conclusions reached by Select Committees, even when those conclusions run counter to the case made by the Government. There must be times when the Government are willing to accept the principle that, even though a Select Committee has found against them and it will cost them time, money and renegotiation, Select Committees are there to do a job.
      The Committee considered this case the first time that the Government wanted to use a design, build and finance procedure. We heard evidence that it would take additional time and money, but the Government said that they were unwilling to accept that conclusion. They said that the only conclusion they would accept was the one that involved the Government giving themselves a small caning on the backside for not putting the facts and figures together very well and for second-rate presentation. That is not good enough and will bring the Select Committee procedure on hybrid Bills into disrepute.
      As I have said, it is an attack not only on the seven members of the Committee but on the whole Select Committee procedure for dealing with hybrid Bills. We all have an interest in seeing that that procedure is properly protected and is not used simply as a doormat by the Government. We must all make a stand to see that Select Committees are used properly and treated with respect, even when they draw conclusions that are inconvenient for
      100
      the Government and for their concessionaires. The Government cannot ride roughshod over Select Committees.
      I should like to make a few points on finance and wind-shielding. These matters are important. When I started to serve on the Committee I took the view, based on gut feeling similar to that felt by some of the professional engineers involved in the design of the bridge, that near the Severn bridge on the west coast where I come from is a very windy area. The east coast is not as windy. Therefore, the many hours during which one would expect to see traffic restricted or diverted from the Severn bridge would not occur on the east coast because the winds in London are not like those in south Wales. I took a macho view.
      The Minister has said that the Severn bridge has been closed only three times in the past 21 years. He did not say that the closures were all in the last two years. We have a Select Committee but we do not want select evidence from the Minister. The evidence must be treated in more than one way, and not just in the way favourable to the Government's case. We have to look at it objectively, because, when the bridge is constructed, it will be in place for a long time.
      The key evidence against the Government was presented by their own employee. He was their top expert not just on winds, but on their effects on structures, which is the key factor in Dr. Cook's expertise, which was never challenged by anybody on the promoters' — the Government's—side. It was to the effect that, because the Dartford crossing would be in a particular alignment across the Thames and high above the river, the wind impact on vehicles crossing it in the one-way mode, which would be the norm, would be virtually as great—well within the margin of error — as the wind impact on traffic on the Severn bridge. I am more familiar with that bridge as I use it once or twice a month. Our experience as laymen that the west coast is windier than the east coast is not necessarily relevant according to the Government's top wind expert, who was called by the petitioners and not by the promoters. That evidence was never challenged.
      We come back to the fundamental point, that, if the Government want to make a success and build confidence in this design, build and finance form of privatisation that they are setting out to use for the motorway system, they have to show that they are not cutting corners in order to make it a financial success for the promoters but of doubtful benefit to road users.
      Let us deal with road users. I speak frankly as someone from the Celtic fringe who, like my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) has no direct traffic constituency connection to the Dartford-Thurrock crossing. We simply have the ability to consider how important this bridge is relative to the roads and bridges in our areas.
      It takes a bit of swallowing of pride to admit to the volume of traffic that will use this road, even though it is not technically classified as a motorway, so that motor bikes, learner drivers, and so on, will be able to use it. The evidence given to us shows that in terms of traffic volume it is about twice as important as the Severn bridge. It will carry a colossal volume of traffic. About 40 or 50 per cent. of traffic will be local, from Essex and Kent, and this is probably the most important short length of motorway anywhere in Britain.
      When the Channel tunnel is opened in 1992–93 and when we have full and free trade under the single internal

      101
      market regulations—assuming that they come about in 1992 — there will be a colossal volume of strategically important traffic travelling from France, Spain and Germany, the Benelux countries, not just to Kent or Essex, but to the midlands and to the north. That traffic will cross that length of motorway over the Thames. Therefore, it is perhaps the single most important two or three miles in the British motorway system. It is vital that it should be right and that there should be no unnecessary restrictions.
      In many ways it will be the road transport jugular vein of Britain. For that reason, if there are ways of making sure that the traffic flows smoothly, we must take them, even if that costs the concessionaires a little extra money or results in a delay in their getting their money back of from 14 to 20 years or conceivably a loss of risk capital. They are in the risk business and that is the risk that they have to take. I do not wish that on the concessionaires, but that is the type of business that they are in. They are not operating on a cost-plus basis. They entered into it on a partly risk-bearing basis and they knew that before the Select Committee stage.
      It is totally wrong for us to say that they may bear some risks, but we must eliminate those risks if they involve additional costs that they do not like. The Government cannot say that if the concessionaires do not like it, they will put it right, but if the Select Committee does not like it, they will ignore it. That is the wrong attitude in terms of the public interest in traffic flow and the importance of the M25 Thames crossing to the road system of Britain starting in 1993.
      The evidence from the Severn bridge is clear, but there will be problems on the M25 Thames crossing, with the weight of lorry traffic which is particularly susceptible to high winds and which will carry key items of export freight from Scotland, the north and the midlands to the continent. It is vital that the bridge is right. It should not be a skimped, second-rate, cut-price bridge in order to ensure that the design, build and finance contract gets off to a good start in the view of the concessionaires and not in the view of the users of the bridge.
      Mr. Dover: I am the only hon. Member who was on the Select Committee and the Standing Committee. I am also a civil engineer, without any financial interest in a building or civil engineering firm, although until the end of 1986 I was Wimpey's parliamentary consultant in the House.
      In his opening speech and in response to the Select Committee, the Minister spoke about the so-called independent report from a Danish engineer. I have that report, and I do not consider that it is independent. The Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Company Ltd. together with COWI Consult, a Danish engineering firm, made a bid for the third Bosphorus bridge in Turkey. I compliment Trafalgar House on its massive export orders around the world and on its superb first Bosphorus bridge. I regret that it did not build the second one, and I hope that it will land the contract for the third.
      Those firms — Cleveland Bridge, part of Trafalgar House and the Dartford River Crossing Company—are in league with the Danish firm in putting in a very large tender for the third Bosphorus crossing. Dartford River Crossing Company briefed the engineers. The Government played no part in that, nor have their advisers, Maunsell and Kent and Essex county councils.
      102
      They have since been asked to do nothing further and they have not been consulted since the end of the Select Committee's consideration.
      There were only two days of briefing with Dartford River Crossing personnel. One of the items that Dartford River Crossing asked the experts to judge was
      "verification of Dr. Homburg's reputation as a major bridge designer."
      It seems strange, at that late stage for the bridge promoter to wonder about the credentials of its own so-called world expert in design. Later in the report there are rather dubious comments about whether the Severn crossing model can be likened to any Dartford model. I understand from Maunsell that the geometry was very similar, but the Danish engineer dismissed any similarity between the two projects.
      The Select Committee spent some time considering whether Dartford or Severn had wind-shielding problems. We have heard from the Minister that full wind-shielding is under consideration for the second Severn bridge crossing. Indeed, much of the evidence to the Select Committee made great play of the fact that there was no bridge in the world with full wind-shielding.
      We have heard that argument tonight. It is not a real argument, because the Government are rightly considering it for the second Severn bridge crossing. Indeed, the bridge referred to in the report, the Little Belt bridge in Denmark designed by the Danish engineer without wind-shielding, now has wind-shielding around its towers.
      Civil engineering is a progressive art and one learns by one's mistakes or one's lack of understanding and takes suitable measures. The report states that a plastic wind shield membrane would be unsuitable. If that is so, and if the expected life is 20 years or less, why has the Department of Transport agreed to have it on a bridge on the River Tees where there is to be 16,000 sq m of glass reinforced plastic fitted?
      I applaud the Department's foresight in covering the structural members that are deteriorating, and making sure that no further deterioration takes place. The plastic fairing and membranes help enormously.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is my hon. Friend asking us to compare weather-shielding with wind-shielding?
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Dover: I will be dealing with wind-shielding in a few moments. Perhaps weather-shielding was what the Minister had in mind at the Tees. I shall explain why I am talking about wind-shielding and the structural significance of the member itself.
      The report made great play of the fact that plastic is not really a suitable member. That is wrong because it cart have, and will have on the Tees, a life of 30 years, which is the maximum period that an agreement certificate requires of any member in maximum exposure conditions.
      The report goes on to say that the plastic material will in some way have to integrate with the steel of the bridge and that the membrane could be in aluminium or stainless steel and has to follow all the movement of the bridge. That is not true. I have checked with Maunsell, which has a different opinion from Mott, Hay and Anderson. It has given its opinion of the report, which is generally available. It says that the paragraph referring to plastic materials and movement, or the joint structural behaviour of that with the steel of the bridge is
      "wholly and totally a wrong assessment."

      103
      The Select Committee heard a lot of evidence about the time delay.
      Mr. Bottomley: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but it is rather important. Was he talking about the membrane or was he referring to the plastic members of the bridge as load carrying or as covering for weather protection for existing members of the bridge?
      Mr. Dover: We are not talking about weather protection as on the Tees bridge. We are talking about wind-shielding, with the fairing membrane making sure that the wind does not impose too much wind load on the bridge but moves past it and that whatever wind pressure is put on the bridge is taken on the main structure which is able to resist it in a more effective way than if the fairing membrane was not there.
      Mr. Bottomley: Then the Tees example is not an effective comparison.
      Mr. Dover: I accept that, if the Minister is saying that it is purely weather protection.
      Mr. Bottomley: It would be helpful to know what my hon. Friend is asserting, so that I can respond to him.
      Mr. Dover: I mentioned the Tees bridge originally because there are assertions that the life of a plastic membrane, as there will be at Tees, is 20 years or less. The Minister will find that it will be 30 years or more at Tees and the Department of Transport would not have allowed weather-shielding to be a plastic membrane if they thought otherwise.
      The Danish expert was told by Dartford River Crossing that the delay would be about 21 months. He immediately made the point in his report that a saving of five months could be made, bringing that delay down to some 16 months. I was reluctant and a little sad to hear tonight that the Government immediately put that up to 18 to 21 months, whereas Maunsell and their advisers Essex and Kent county councils reckoned on a delay of some six months.
      Mr. Michael Fallon: How can my hon. Friend convince the House that either Kent or Essex can make a better assessment of the likely delay involved in the redesign of the bridge than the company that has the contract? The opinion of those who will have to redesign the bridge— the work will be done in Darlington—is that it will take 15 to 21 months. How can Essex county council have a superior view?
      Mr. Dover: If my hon. Friend studied the Select Committee proceedings, he would see that time was spent on analysing in great detail bar charts, some showing critical path networks through those programmes and Maunsell, Kent and Essex put their points of view, and the promoters of the bridge put their points of view. It was clear to the members of the Committee that there were time savings, and that speedier routes could be followed. The Danish expert said immediately that a saving of five months could be made, but the Government have said that they will forget that, and that they reckon that the delay will be 18 to 21 months. It is possible to redesign the bridge in terms of an overall trapezoidal box, as the report suggests, but the report is not truly independent. It would
      104
      be possible to redesign it with minimum changes, perhaps adding one or two extra longitudinal members, and that was accepted in the Select Committee.
      In the Government's response, and tonight, we have heard about an extra cost of £15 million to £18 million. It is odd that the Danish engineer was not asked to quantify the extra cost associated with the addition of wind-shielding. Tonight, for the first time, we have heard a cost-benefit analysis from the Government. We have had one from Maunsell saying that the cost-benefit is £20 million to £30 million, whereas the range of costs is £5 million to £15 million or £18 million. The users of the crossing will provide £16 million of net profit each year. If there is an override cost of £16 million or £18 million, that will be swallowed up by one years' extra toll income. There is a buffer period of five years' tolls at the end of the envisaged construction period for the facility.
      The Select Committee heard that the Government's man in charge — the project director — used his sixth sense to judge that wind-shielding was not needed. We have heard that full wind-shielding is under consideration for the second Severn bridge, and I welcome that. We have read in the report from the Danish engineer that there is limited wind-shielding, as the Government intend, around the towers, and that will certainly stop the dramatic effect that drivers will feel as they pass those towers.
      However, I wish the House to concentrate on the four lanes of traffic heading south at about 50 mph and slowing down towards the toll on the southern side of the bridge. Until they reach the crest, they will have been protected from the prevailing south-west wind, but when they hit the crest, they will hit that wind full on, because they will be dropping from a rising gradient to a falling gradient. The design gradients on the bridge are the maximum permitted for a 50 mph speed range.
      In other words, there is a dramatic change and, along with that, a dramatic wind, but the Government are not having any wind-shielding at that point. My hon. Friend the Minister said that he will gladly carry the can, but 1 hope that he will think more carefully about the issue. It is a matter of the wind direction and the direction of the traffic. My hon. Friend mentioned the Orwell bridge, but there is already a solid barrier there which is some 1·2 m high and made of concrete. No wonder there has been no closure of that bridge through wind.
      I say this with great regret, but I could not possibly support the amendment. The Select Committee thought carefully, and heard the evidence, but the Government have not gone out for independent advice to see whether one set of experts or the other is correct. All we have is the promoter seeking a further source of advice from a group with which he is already in league. I wish them all success in their third Bosphorus crossing tender.
      I shall end by quoting from an article by the county engineers of Essex and Kent, areas in which half the drivers using the crossing will originate or have their destinations, so the views of these people are a vital consideration. They say:
      "The public at large must have complete confidence in this first privately financed design and build estuarial crossing … Traffic difficulties at Dartford in future due to wind conditions would neither be forgotten nor forgiven by the public we all serve."
      I feel that the Government are making a mistake by turning down the recommendations of the Select Committee. Wind-shielding should be added to the bridge.
      Mr. Janman: I welcome the Bill's quick return to the House and for the same reason as I welcomed its Second Reading. I also welcome the amendment deleting the unproven requirement for the wind-shielding. Although I withdrew it, I tabled a similar amendment in Committee. I support the Government, and not as a Government Back-Bench poodle, as was intimated by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks).
      Mr. Dicks: I said that it sometimes seemed that way, although I could have been mistaken. I was not referring to the Bill that we are discussing, so my hon. Friend should put his quotation in context.
      Mr. Janman: I stand as a Member whose constituency is immediately adjacent to the crossing and as somebody who is therefore extremely concerned whether the design of the bridge has been got right. With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, the number of drivers crossing the bridge daily who will emanate from my constituency will outnumber by a large factor the number of people crossing the bridge who will emanate from Hayes and Harlington. Therefore, I have a great interest in making sure that the Government get the design right. The team working on this project from DRCC and the Trafalgar House group was experienced and expert. The comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) about the worldwide experience of Trafalgar House in designing bridges shows that it is unlikely that a company of such prestige and professionalism would come to a conclusion that is faulty in the way that my hon. Friend suggested.
      The second Severn crossing is only just being considered and no decision about wind-shielding on that crossing has yet been reached. It may be decided that it is not required even in that particular location, which is much more susceptible to wind than the Thames between Dartford and Thurrock. Until that decision is made, it is safe to say that there is no major estuarial crossing in the world with full wind-shielding. The only instance of full wind-shielding in Europe can be seen on the Europa bridge across the Still valley in Austria. That bridge is sited at an elevation of 2,500 ft and that is quite a different location from the Thames between the Essex and Kent plains in my constituency.
      The petitioners have based much of their case for extra wind-shielding on experience with the Severn bridge. Some of the Severn bridge's problems are caused by wind, but many are caused by its design. It is far more susceptible to a variety of problems, some caused by wind, than almost any other bridge in the United Kingdom. Why did the petitioners not consider the Humber bridge, the Forth bridge or any other major bridge in the United Kingdom? Obviously, it was not in their interests to do so. I believe that Maunsell, which advised Essex and Kent county councils, has a patent on full wind-shielding. I will take that back if I am wrong. Of course, Maunsell therefore has an interest to ensure that the bridge has full wind-shielding.
      Mr. Morgan: I want to explain that Maunsell has also been chosen by the Department of Transport to be the consultant engineers for the second Severn crossing.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: Hon. Members on both sides of the House should realise that the geometry of Dartford differs from the proposed second Severn crossing and one
      106
      cannot use one of those crossings as a surrogate for the other. It is also worth noting that, while the Department responsibly considers wind-shielding on the second Severn crossing, it would be ludicrous if it did not, for any good reason, aim to do the same for the Dartford crossing. The Department should be allowed some credit for being responsible for commissioning the work on the second Severn crossing.
      9 pm
      Mr. Janman: The point that I am trying to make is that the firm of consulting engineers chosen by Essex and Kent has a vested interest in ensuring that full wind-shielding is installed on the bridge because it has a patent on a full wind-shielding design.
      Let us consider the comparison that was made between the Dartford-Thurrock crossing and the Severn bridge. It has already been said that the Severn bridge has been closed completely only three times in its 21-year life. I believe that the laboratory where Dr. Cook worked produced projections before the Severn bridge was built about the number of hours of lane closures due to wind —although I must state that I do not know whether Dr. Cook was involved in those projections. I believe that I am right to state—no doubt my hon. Friend the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that the projections were out by at least a factor of two. There have been fewer hours of lane closures on the Severn bridge than the laboratory to which hon. Members have referred projected.
      The statistics show that there is an average of 168 hours per annum of lane closure on the existing Severn crossing. Some of the projections offered by the petitioners to the Select Committee on Transport estimated that the influence of wind at Dartford would be five times greater than actually occurs at the Severn bridge, when current British standards show that maximum gust wind speeds at Dartford are about 15 per cent. lower than on the Severn bridge. The petitioners used very low wind thresholds as the base for their predictions of wind effect at Dartford.
      However, the number of hours when the wind exceeds specific thresholds was calculated by the Dartford River Crossing Company for both the Dartford and Severn bridges using Meteorological Office records corrected for bridge heights and locations. The records show that the "hours of wind"—that is, the number of hours when the wind would reach a gust speed that would cause lane closures—for Dartford are no more than 25 per cent. of the Severn bridge figures for the same threshold speeds.
      Taking other special factors into account, such as the particular design of the bridge and the fact that the traffic flows only one way, everyone concerned with the project has concluded, quite rightly I believe, that the number of hours of lane closure on the Thurrock-Dartford crossing would be as few as 24 per annum. When my hon. Friend the Minister replies, I hope that he will clarify whether the figure of 24 hours does or does not include the effect of localised wind-shielding and whether, if it does not, the figure of 24 hours could be reduced even further with the addition of such localised wind-shielding.
      Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman has made considerable play of the 24-hour figure about which, according to him, everyone involved in the project agrees. Given the discrepancy between 24 hours and 880 hours—the figure produced by the Government's top expert on the effect of wind on structures — will he name one expert who

      107
      supports the 24-hour figure who has the same background, expertise and reputation as Dr. Cook? There is an awful discrepancy between 24 hours and 880 hours. If we are to judge fairly on this, will he name one expert whose reputation is as formidable as Dr. Cook's to back up his 24-hour figure, if possible without reference to any of his hon. Friends?
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: It may be helpful to the House if I explain that we are not playing a game. We are considering a serious issue to which the Select Committee devoted nearly 21 days.
      Mr. Morgan: Is that a point for the Government's side?
      Mr. Bottomley: I hope that this is of assistance to the House. I open my mouth to make points not just for my side. It is fair to say that Dr. Cook presented data on wind speeds and occurrences. He did not get involved in the argument about whether wind shields were necessary.
      Mr. Janman: It has also been accepted that at the east London river crossing, only eight miles up river and in similar territory, there will be 25.hours of lane closure per year. It strikes me that, there being only a difference of one hour between those two crossings, one could logically come to the conclusion that 24 hours of lane closure is correct. The Government, the Department of Transport, the consultants acting on behalf of the Government, the Dartford River Crossing Company and the Trafalgar House group, all of which have individuals whose judgment I respect and value, have come to the conclusion that there will be only 24 hours of lane closures per year at the new crossing as a result of the gust speeds that will operate in this geographic location and their effect on vehicles travelling across. It is interesting—
      Mr. Robert Hughes: I should like to make one point to the hon. Gentleman. He has cast some doubt on the integrity of the firm of consultants that advised about wind-shielding on the ground that it is trying to sell its systems to Trafalgar House and therefore cannot be objective. The hon. Gentleman should have a care about casting doubt on people's reputations, especially as he appears to be quoting from a brief that he received from Thurrock borough council. It is the council that is making those allegations and it is opposed to the system. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will try to deal with the matter on its merits and not throw mud about.
      Mr. Janman: With respect, I said that the company had a patent on the design. I did not at any time say that it was trying to sell it. I am not quoting from a brief provided by my local council, which I should remind the hon. Gentleman is a Labour-controlled local authority. If he is casting doubt on its integrity, perhaps the current political control has something to do with that.
      It has been revealed in the debate that most of the wind-related incidents on the existing Severn bridge occur near the towers of the bridge. Therefore, it is important that there should be some form of wind-shielding at the towers. That is exactly what the localised wind-shielding will provide. In my view, it will cater adequately for any wind-shielding that is required.
      We have to decide tonight whether it is worth the extra cost to the motorist and the extra delays. I do not think that it matters whether the delay is 15, 18 or 21 months;
      108
      we are talking about a long delay in a project that is required urgently. As my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) pointed out, that sort of delay could jeopardise jobs in the north-east of England, which is where Opposition Members are always saying that we need more jobs.
      For 24 hours of lane closure per year, of which, statistically, at least half will be at night when the real challenges of traffic control will not apply, are we prepared to have that long delay and jeopardise jobs in the north-east? Perhaps what has happened, to use a rugby analogy, is that the Select Committee has scored the first try, but I think that after reassessing the evidence, which the Government have done, we will see that the winning argument is that against wind-shielding, not the argument in favour.
      I certainly welcome the Bill on Report and Third Reading and I welcome and support the amendment. My constituents are intimately involved in the bridge and are keen to see it built as soon as possible. They certainly do not want to drive across a bridge that is dangerous. They welcome the Government's reassessment and their conclusion.
      Mr. Bob Cryer: I come as a non-member of the Select Committee to listen to the debate because it is important that we should keep an eye on these matters and not leave discussions to Committee Members.
      I have heard the arguments and read some of the report, and I am alarmed to see that, in paragraph 6 of its report, the Select Committee stated:
      "Over the course of 15 days, we heard a substantial amount of evidence on the desirability or otherwise of adding windshielding to the bridge."
      The Committee's conclusions were made on an entirely objective basis with no party political involvement. That objective assessment of the evidence was made after long and boring proceedings, with counsel for both sides appearing to be paid by the hour and making every hour as lucrative as possible—that is the general reputation of such Committees—yet the Committee's conclusions were case aside so lightly by the Government
      I also read the Government report, and I hope that the Minister will answer my questions. In paragraph 6 of its report the Select Committee stated:
      "We acknowledge that a requirement to add windshielding to the design at this stage would cause some delay to and increase the cost of construction. We believe, however, that these disadvantages should be set against the significant reduction in the number of occasions when restrictions on vehicles using the bridge would have to be imposed owing to high winds. We concluded that the benefits to be gained from windshielding are sufficient to compensate for the delay and increased cost in building the bridge. We have agreed by a majority of five to one to amend the Bill accordingly."
      That was a hefty majority of the Committee. The House will accept that the Committee was considering the matter objectively. People suspect that perhaps the Government have not been quite so objective. The Minister will be able to tell us whether, as a result of those published conclusions in the special report of the Select Committee, there have been any representations from Trafalgar House, any communications, meetings with civil servants or the Minister, exchanges of letters or protests from the concessionaires, who would not like to see the cost of bridge construction increased in that way.
      Has there been any pressure, or has the Department taken an entirely objective position and decided that the

      109
      additional cost is simply not worth the candle of the reduced number of potential closures on the bridge because of high winds?
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: I remember one conversation with a senior member of the Dartford River Crossing Company. I suspect that there have been letters, and there have certainly been meetings, because we have put a substantial amount of pressure on DRCC to obtain the information on which we could make an objective judgment. I stand by the words in my opening speech.
      Mr. Cryer: When a Minister tries to make an objective judgment on subjective information from people who are interested parties, it is a difficult process. I understand the Minister's problem, but, in Parliament, we have to consider the circumstances and decide whether they are satisfactory.
      There are two sides to the matter. On the one hand, hon. Members who are not involved on a constituency basis and have no axe to grind have to go through a boring procedure because they are asked to do so and have to make the best of the circumstances. On the other hand, the Minister, cosseted by civil servants behind closed doors, receives evidence from people with a clear financial vested interest. The difficulties in making an objective decision are far greater for the Minister than for the Committee.
      We set up these Committees to do a job in the public interest. The Committee may just as well not have sat, for all the value that the Government have placed on its deliberations. It is not just a case of the Labour Opposition saying that the Government are taking a ham-fisted approach, as there has been virulent criticism from a Conservative Member. This is an important matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) said — he is a Rugby Union enthusiast, with some justification to judge from recent events—the House will have to consider the issue. With a Government who have a majority of 100, the House has to reassess its position in regard to an elected dictatorship. If we have Select Committees spending hours examining evidence that is then discarded, the House will have to consider whether it is worth while pursuing such procedure for legislation such as this.
      The inability of the Government and the concessionaires to present adequate evidence was all concealed behind a cloak of commerial confidentiality. That cloak is used far too frequently. Departments can shield pretty well what they want. By and large, it is not Ministers who classify documents, "Commercial in Confidence". The documents arrive on their desks stamped by a civil servant. Until we are clear about the relationship between Trafalgar House and the Civil Service, we are not clear about the influences that produce category.
      9.15 pm
      I do not accept the argument in the Government's resonse that there was sufficient justification on grounds of commercial confidentiality to inhibit them from presenting a full and comprehensive answer to the detailed questions which the Committee properly asked. In paragraph 17, the Government say:
      "The Government, as promoters of the Bill, assisted by the concessionaires, presented the case in the way they thought most helpful to the Committee."
      110
      That patently was not the case — the Committee complained. The Government are to have an inquiry. They say:
      "The Secretary of State has already begun an enquiry into the way in which the case was handled and will ensure that this enquiry includes consideration of ways in which difficulties might be avoided on any future occasion."
      That is the sort of platitudinous nonsense that Governments turn out to suit any occasion. We shall get a platitudinous report in which the Government say that a little more information could have been presented a little earlier. The Secretary of State will look at it and it will gather dust until the next point of disagreement.
      The Government are too closed a society. Government Departments use the excuse of secrecy to do what they like. It is simply not good enough to have such a response to people who were elected here to do a job which they do not much like doing but which they do with reasonable spirit. In a spirit of inquiry, they produced a report for public consumption. They were fobbed off with childish answers. It does the Minister and the Department no good at all to produce a response of such poor calibre.
      The case that the Select Committee made has not yet been answered. I look forward to the Minister's winding-up speech. He has received strong criticism from both sides of the House and from members of the Committee. There is a strong case for retaining the Committee's recommendation. I hope that there is a vote on the Government amendment. In view of the Minister's comments, I suspect that the Government have kept sufficient Members here to see the amendment through. The matter will not be decided in quite as objective a way as has been suggested. It is lamentable that the Government's case has been put forward on such an ordinary level. They have produced no answers of any substance.
      Mr. James Couchman: We spent 21 days of our lives listening to evidence, much of it highly complex and technical. AI times, indeed, it became positively surrealistic to listen to long and worthy arguments about vortex-shedding, flutter and all sorts of other strange things of which I have never heard in my life. My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr Chapman) was a delight as Chairman: indeed, it was his chairmanship that made some of the lengthier and more boring sections of the inquiry bearable.
      It had its lighter moments, however. Mention has been made of the substantial fees paid to counsel on both sides. The House sat all through one Tuesday evening, and, when we assembled on Wednesday morning, we had to remind counsel that the day was still Tuesday, and that Tuesday's refresher would have to do for Wednesday as well. There were one or two unhappy faces on the other side of the table! However, it has to be said that those moments were brief and all too infrequent.
      The sitting became a battle of wits between the rapier cross-examination of the petitioners' counsel, Mr. Conrad Dehn, and the somewhat more pedestrian efforts of the Government's counsel and between the articulate and highly credible evidence of the petitioners' principal witness, Mr. Churchman, arid some of the more halting contributions on behalf of the Government and the concessionaires.
      Ultimately, it came down to whether we accepted the petitioners' contention that restrictions would have to be put on the bridge for, variously, 500 or 800 hours a year.

      111
      In their rebuttal of the Select Committee's evidence, the Government have produced in appendix A facts and figures which I wish to goodness we had had when the Committee sat. If I had been able to see that the Severn bridge had been closed only three times in its 20-year history, that the average for lane closures between 1984 and 1986 was only 168 hours a year and that restrictions on wind-susceptible vehicles were only 60 hours a year, it would have been easier to cut through the enormous verbiage to which we were subjected.
      I am also taken with the Government's instance of the Mar Dyke, on the crossing approaches of the M25, just north of the Dartford-Thurrock crossing. There, we are told, the forecast suggests that gusts of 50 mph, the conventionally accepted threshold for consideration of the closure of a bridge to wind-susceptible vehicles, occur for just 11 hours a year. We are told that, using the same forecasting methods — the petitioners' own wind forecasting method, I believe, was used—the projection for Dartford bridge is some 37 hours a year. I use the name of Dartford bridge in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman), who has other ideas about its naming. If the Mar Dyke viaduct offers such projections to a bridge just south of it, we have listened to an awful lot of words based on information produced by one side and not rebutted by the other.
      I regret that the Government have had to rely for their rebuttal largely on the evidence produced by Aksel Frandsen, the distinguished Danish engineer from COWI Consult. I regret most the fact that this rebuttal has been produced with new evidence after the Select Committee and the Standing Committee finished their proceedings, so this evidence cannot be tested by cross-examination by the Committee or by the counsel who represented the petitioners and the Government. I find Mr. Aksel Frandsen's evidence persuasive, but that is likely to happen, because I was the one—as opposed to the five — who did not find the petitioners' case to have been made.
      I sat through many hours in Committee. I represent a Kent constituency and my natural feeling would have been to support the petition submitted by my county and Essex, but I did not find the case to have been made. I was especially concerned by the threat of delays that would result from redesign work and the possible rehybridisation of the Bill. That becomes a real prospect if one reads carefully the evidence of Mr. Frandsen and of the Government.
      It is clear— I think that this was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) —that the gradients of the bridge are the maximum that can be permitted in these circumstances. If those gradients were to be retained and the bridge had to be completely redesigned to a trapezoidal box system, as opposed to an orthotropic steel deck, the toll booths at the southern end would have to be moved. That would involve more land and other people whose interests might be hurt by the Bill. That would clearly involve rehybridisation and the reselection of the Select Committee. I hope to have a good alibi so that I am not recommissioned to sit on the Select Committee, because 21 days was long enough.
      I am content that the Government seek by way of this amendment to take wind-shielding out of the Bill. I am less content with the inelegant way in which it has had to be
      112
      done. I am certain that, had the Government and the concessionaires presented a better case in Select Committee, we would not have come to the conclusions that we did. I think especially of Mr. Frandsen's evidence. Whether it is compromised by the fact that COWI Consult worked with Trafalgar House is by the by. That evidence would have been persuasive and we would not have found the petitioners' case to be made.
      I shall support the Government. I dare say that other members of the Select Committee from both sides of the House will feel that, in the interests of consistency, they should vote against the amendment. We shall find out in the Lobbies who will prevail.
      Mr. Fallon: I shall be brief, because the House wants to come to a decision. I begin by declaring an interest— not a financial interest, company involvement or an interest as a fan of any of the various sets of civil engineers mentioned during the debate, but a constituency interest. Much of the fabrication involved in the bridge will be carried out in Darlington. We look forward to some 350 man years of work in Darlington, involving some 20,000 tonnes of steel fabrication. That work will be done in Darlington and the steel will be produced either in the north-east or in Scotland. I should have liked to hear at least some recognition of the employment effects of the contract from hon. Members who have sought to impose the wind shield and the delay that is consequent upon it.
      The rest of the country has an interest in the bridge. It is not simply a matter for Kent or Essex. Some areas of high unemployment will be involved in its construction. Regions north of Essex are looking forward to faster and more efficient links with the south and Europe.
      I make that point because 1,000 men in Darlington are on short-time working. They are now facing a four-day week. The Select Committee has been making leisurely progress—it sat for three days a week as the lawyers sought to debate for hour after hour—and 1,000 of my constituents have been forced on to a four-day week while waiting for this project, which has been substantially delayed by the Select Committee's slow progress.
      I want to be fair to the Select Committee, because I understand the problems involved. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) that I served on a Select Committee in the last Parliament that sat for twice as long as this one—the Select Committee on the Channel Tunnel Bill. I understand the burden that is imposed on hon. Members.
      Nevertheless, it is right to point out that today's debate illustrates perfectly the impossible task that the Select Committee had. It is not the function of a Select Committee to design a bridge; we do not ask a Select Committee to do that. Nor can we ask a Select Committee to redesign a bridge on the basis of petitions and evidence from civil engineers and construction experts.
      I suspect that it was because of the over-generosity of my hon. Friend for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) and the Committee in accepting the locus of the petitioners that it put itself in this impossible position. I think that that was a serious error of judgment.
      The entire debate has been about an important issue of public policy — exactly how the bridge should be constructed, what the various delays involved are and how the traffic can be dealt with if the delays materialise. That point is not just a matter for the petitioners of Kent and Essex. It is a matter of public policy. It was wrong for the

      113
      Select Committee to take it on board. It should have been left to a Standing Committee to consider, along with the other issues of public policy that could have been brought before it.
      Mr. Chapman: In fairness to the Select Committee, it should be said that in examining whether the petitioners had a locus we had to look at whether their interests would have been affected. Rightly or wrongly — perhaps my hon Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) thinks wrongly—we said that they did have an interest because of the consequences for their roads on both sides of the River Thames if the bridge was closed.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Fallon: I accept that point, and I have read the proceedings of the Committee. I notice that the Select Committee was divided and that it voted on whether a locus had been established. I believe that the Select Committee was wrong. Of course a council on either side of the river might have an interest in whether traffic would be redirected, but that interest is not necessarily any greater than that of Durham county council, Darlington borough council, the rest of our road network from which much of the traffic might originate or those district or county councils to which the traffic might be directed. The Select Committee confused a particular interest with a wider general public interest that Kent and Essex have, but which they share with other local authorities throughout the country.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that, if the Select Committee had not accepted the locus and had generated, albeit over a lengthy period, such an intense and interesting debate about wind-shielding, the Government would not have introduced partial wind-shielding? The Committee has done a service because apparently the bridge is now even better, although it is not entirely what the petitioners and some hon. Members wanted. Improvement has been effected because of the Select Committee's work. I tell the hon. Gentleman—I hope without being patronising—that that never would have arisen if the matter had been dealt with solely by a Standing Committee.
      Mr. Fallon: I certainly accept that the Select Committee has done a service to the House in ensuring that the issue has been properly debated. Equally, the matter could have been before a Standing Committee. I am seeking to establish that the Select Committee put itself in an impossible position. It came to a divided conclusion.
      Mr. Dicks: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Fallon: No, I shall not give way.
      The Committee was divided in its conclusion on whether shielding was necessary. It voted on the issue. It is inevitable that one side of the Committee will be satisfied and that the other will be dissatisfied about whatever steps the Government take to deal with the matter. It is unfair to the House and wrong to expect a Select Committee to deal with the matter in that way.
      The way in which the Committee considered the matter has lengthened the amount of time involved. The project has been considerably delayed. I hope that it will not be delayed much longer. It is instructive to note that a bridge was first considered by the House in 1930, when the tunnel was first planned. That was 58 years ago.
      Mr. Tony Lloyd: This has been a curious debate, for at least one reason. The only voices that have been raised in aid of the Government, other than that of the Minister —I say this kindly to the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) — have been those of hon. Members who have a vested interest in the project or in the Government. I shall pass over the hon. Gentleman's PPS-ships.
      Mr. Couchman: I devoted 21 days of my life to listening to the evidence, and I found the petitioners' case wanting. I have been consistent in finding that case wanting tonight. I shall certainly support the Government on that basis, not because I am a junior member of the most junior rung of the Government.
      Mr. Lloyd: I accept the hon. Gentleman's juniority. It is well-deserved. I do not wish to engage in a personalised debate.
      The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) made it clear that he spoke for what he perceived to be the interests of his constituents, as indeed did the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman).
      Those hon. Members who have come disinterested to the Chamber have spoken powerfully against the amendment and in favour of the status quo. It is rather curious and instructive to note the way in which, in his latter remarks, the hon. Member for Darlington managed to confuse the House and himself. He said that somehow it was heinous that the Select Committee should divide five to one, and that somehow that meant that there was a rift. The hon. Gentleman prefers the ministerial steamroller — the absolute certainty of the Minister telling him exactly how to behave — to the idea that we in a democratic society and in a democratic Parliament should have differences of opinion on matters that everyone concedes are of great complication. The Select Committee procedure allows it to examine in detail, over a considerable period, the arguments that were put forward, and to have a difference of opinion. Even within that difference of opinion, the way in which it voted on a cross-party basis was overwhelming.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said, had it not been for the Select Committee, the concept of partial wind-shielding would not have arisen. The Minister indicated his assent to that earlier, and no doubt he will confirm it later. But the progress of the Bill through the House reflects no credit on the promoters or on the Department.
      The Select Committee produced two volumes of detailed argument and evidence. I have not had the opportunity —hon. Members would not have expected it — to replicate all the deliberations of the Committee. The Minister has admitted that he has not had the direct experience of the members of the Select Committee. Like mine, his experience is second-hand. Yet the Government have produced a document which supposedly refutes the technical arguments that were made before the Select Committee.
      The document contains information that was not made available to members of the Select Committee, and its production at this late stage is inadequate. It is not good enough that the Select Committee did not have information on wind speeds in other areas. It is not good enough that the Committee did not hear that evidence put to the test under cross-examination, as happened with all

      115
      the other evidence that it heard. It is not good enough that the Government had already made up their mind to oppose the Select Committee examining wind-shielding.
      This evening, we have heard arguments about whether that examination was right or wrong. It is worth quoting from the minutes of evidence on page 853. On Thursday 15 December, the Chairman said:
      "The Government challenged the right of the Petitioners to be heard on the subjects of windshielding and the toll regime. Concerning the latter, the Government contended that the Petitioners had no locus standi on this issue and also that any alteration to the proposed regime would be contrary to the principle of the Bill. We decided that the County Councils did not have a locus standi on this issue, so the Petitioners were not allowed to produce evidence on it."
      But the Committee accepted that the two county councils had an interest in wind-shielding, and the ensuing prolonged debate has been of great importance to the House. There was no debate on the issue on Second Reading, because the evidence was not available at the time. But once the petitioners started to make their case to the Select Committee, it became obvious that powerful arguments had to be considered — powerful arguments that the Government wanted to sweep under the table.
      The Minister should respond to that point because the Government, through their representatives, opposed the idea that wind-shielding should be discussed. Had it not been discussed, we should not have achieved what everyone accepts is the improvement of partial wind-shielding. That is a black mark on the Government's record and handling of the matter.
      In Standing Committee, the Opposition made it clear that there was little point in pursuing the argument because we had received no new evidence from the Government. They had already made it clear that they intended to table an amendment on Report. But we did not know on what information the Government would base the amendment. We now have that evidence and the opportunity of this narrow debate, but we could have debated the matter more fully in Standing Committee had the information been available.
      The Government made some play of the amount of time that the Bill has taken, but no one can argue that the two or three weeks that have elapsed between the proceedings in Standing Committee and now will greatly affect the role of the bridge in the traffic management of the south-east and the nation generally.
      Dr. Reid: In response to what was said earlier by the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon). does my hon. Friend accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and I have male unemployment in our constituencies well in excess of that in Darlington? Is he aware that both of us have a steel interest and that, however remote, our subjective interest would be to push the Bill through as soon as possible? Do not those two facts make our case even stronger because, despite them, we feel that in the public interest there should be some delay and that wind-shielding should be added?
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Lloyd: I accept my hon. Friend's point. Despite what I said earlier about the hon. Member for Gillingham, all members of the Select Committee began and ended with clean hands. We were all disinterested and the process was
      116
      conducted in the interests of general public and parliamentary scrutiny of an important Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North said, we want to see another crossing at this part of the Thames. It is important that it should be built.
      But it is not right for Parliament to allow a crossing on any terms and conditions, or to accept whatever scheme is proposed by promoters in any circumstances simply because of delays of weeks or even months. There is an argument between the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) and the Minister about the nature of the delays. Even if they are as long as 18 months, it is not right for us to accept a second-rate bridge or an unacceptable bridge simply because we all accept the ultimate importance of another crossing at this point.
      It is remarkable to have a procedure involving hon. Members, only at the end of it to reject everything that they do. That is what the Government have done, and no one should have any illusions about it. The Government have not taken on board the evidence that came before us or our recommendations; they have rejected them completely. There has been a partial attempt through limited wind-shielding to allay public fears, and that at least is a partial triumph for the Select Committee, but clearly, from the recommendations, that is not what it wanted. Nor is it what the public needs. There are real doubts and anxieties about wind-shielding. The Government should not casually dismiss the Select Committee process.
      Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber want this bridge. We are not divided along party political lines. Every hon. Member knows that the Government will have their payroll vote steamroller this Bill through, partly because the concept of design, build and finance projects is ideologically important to them. They want to make this first one a success. We are not here to debate that and I shall not detain the House, except to say that the Government's desire to make a success of the first of these new bridge-building projects is not an adequate reason to steamroller the procedures of the House and the work done by hon. Members on both sides where no party political division exists. The Chamber will become divided if the Government say that we must take evidence on trust and unexamined when the alternative evidence was examined thoroughly and carefully.
      I cannot understand why the Minister should expect me to trust him as an individual. Ultimately, he is present as the arbiter of the experts that he marshals. He is here to convince the House that his expert's evidence has greater validity than that of the experts who paraded before the Select Committee. I do not say this unkindly, but I can have no greater confidence in his ability to represent his experts than I have in the five members of the Select Committee who listened with great attention hour after hour, day after day.
      That is what divides the House. It is an issue of confidence in the procedure which has arrived at the decision to get rid of the full wind-shielding on the bridge, and whether it has adequately examined the facts. We say that it has not. The procedure that produced the report that recommended wind-shielding was as thorough as could take place under the parliamentary process. Because that procedure has been followed and the recommendation was overwhelmingly in favour of wind-shielding, I ask my hon. Friends to resist the amendment.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley Mr. Peter Bottomley: The
      "majority recommendation by the parliamentary select committee on the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill to introduce wind shielding raises important questions of a constitutional philosophical and technical nature. First, the constitutional issue.
      A hybrid Bill procedure was adopted for the privately financed bridge because it offers a much shorter preconstruction period than the conventional and somewhat discredited public inquiry route, and gives a chance of opening the structure early in the 1990s.
      But if the hybrid route is to he more than just a rubber stamp, then Parliament's scrutiny must be thorough and its views influential. It is no good the promoter bleating that the alterations required by the select committee add costs and delays, or that such changes are tantamount to breaking faith with the agreement or changing the rules part way through. Just as with the 19th century railway Bills, the promoter must convince Parliament of its case, and must run the risk of failing. Privately financed construction should operate that way or not at all.
      The second question concerns the nature of the project. Any Government interested in the efficient movement of people and freight has to be concerned about the vulnerability of a particular link to bad weather, while a private promoter might simply be interested in the effect any closure would have on commercial viability. Their conclusions need not be the same. The Select Committee on the Dartford crossing is correct to scrutinise this issue in the public interest.
      The third and crucial question is whether the recommendation is right. Were the bridge an isolated crossing with no other routes nearby (such as at Severn) the answer might well be yes. But with the tunnel alternatives so close, it is hard to see how the committee can justify the extra cost and delay. On these grounds, the Government may be justified in overruling the committee.
      Both private finance and the hybrid Bill have much to offer in construction, but only where the promoter shoulders risk and where the Parliamentary procedure has teeth. If they are to succeed, promoters must become more forthcoming and persuasive than at the Dartford hearings, and select committees need to be more technically literate, perhaps by employing advisors, so that they can judge better conflicting technical advice."
      Those words come from the New Civil Engineer editorial after the Committee had reported, and I believe that the House thinks that they are all right.
      There is the issue that Parliament cannot allow the Government to take it for granted, especially when a Select Committee has served as long and hard as did this one. The editorial went on to say that the Select Committee's recommendation was not necessarily right. When I was watching the Select Committee from afar, it was interesting to note that the technical press showed no interest. The issue was considered for seven weeks, yet the New Civil Engineer did not report it each week, the Institution of Civil Engineers did not organise seminars in the middle of it, and the construction journals showed no interest in it, and that was a sign to me that the issue did not grip the whole of the consulting world as it obviously did the counsel for the petitioners and promoters and members of the Select Committee. Having read, day by day the transcript—

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. MacLean.]
    Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
    Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman has made his point and I shall not dissent from most of what he said.
    The interest in the Bill seems to be growing in the House. Hon. Members from Essex and Kent who have been present throughout the debate have shown a clear interest, as the traffic starts in those counties. One can understand the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn). I am sure that he would have spoken had he not been a member of the Government.
    120
    I pay tribute to the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North accepted that wind-shielding would need to be redesigned. Although he would not claim to be an expert in bridge design or redesign, his conclusion would be accepted by most people. I know that the Select Committee spent much time considering that point, but with the extra evidence that the Government have made available, it would be common sense to accept that conclusion. Bridges across the Thames are not designed and redesigned in Committee. They need to be designed in such a way that the promoters and the concessionaires have confidence in them and can demonstrate that confidence to reasonable, objective people such as myself.
    I have had to consider what is right. Although delay can matter, the key issues are whether the bridge will last and whether it will be safe. Clearly, it will last, and the Government consider that it will be safe. Obviously, different points of view have been expressed during the debate. There was a reference to cutting corners. We do not intend to cut corners. We want a bridge that will work.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) who chaired the Select Committee, carefully pointed out the issues with which the Select Committee was concerned and explained the Select Committee's conclusions about the evidence that was put forward. His speech stands by itself and needs no comments from me. I emphasise that he dealt with the cost and the delay. He also spoke about the technical advisers to the Committee. Having read the way in which the case was put, I reckon that the best move would be for counsel's fees to decline daily, as the Select Committee proceeded, and for hon. Members' attendance allowances to increase daily.
    My hon. Friends the Members for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) and for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) put their cases very well, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon). I shall not summarise the arguments put forward in favour of the Government's conclusion, which I do not deny was the same as that with which they started. However, we have ended up with rather better evidence for our view. I hope that I have put it rather better, or at least more briefly than it was put during the Select Committee hearings.
    I must say to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) that I did not hide the decision that the Government had taken in Standing Committee. The Government had not taken a decision in Standing Committee. Indeed, my opening speech led my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) to believe that the Government would accept full wind-shielding. It was only on my second attempt at explaining the Government's considerations that it became apparent that if the Government's further research confirmed that full wind-shielding was not necessary, the Government would come forward, in the open, on the Floor of the House, to ask the House to make a decision. It would have been wrong in Standing Committee, even if all the further work had been completed, to take out the amendment, or propose to take it out, when more than half the members of the Select Committee were not on the Committee. It is far better to do it openly if we decide to do that.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley rehearsed some of the arguments about plastic covering that were put to the Select Committee. It is unnecessary for me to repeat those arguments. The conclusions reached by the

    121
    independent engineer, at least independent of the DRCC and the Government, had given some weight to the views on the cost and the delay, and annex A helps to deal with the inter-relationship between the hours of wind-exceedence and the effect on traffic.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr.Dicks) made a robust speech. I am happy for him to pat me on the back, but some of the transfer of the approach suitable for a politician to a public official is wrong. I spend a lot of time with officials in the Department of Transport. They occasionally make mistakes, and I more frequently make mistakes, but together we serve the community well, and the same thing would apply if the Labour party were in government.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman would not be a Minister.
    Mr. Bottomley: I am sorry to hear that. I thought that I would be a fixture, like a Speaker.
    I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington that the Department had the benefit of expert advice on all aspects of the scheme through its consultant engineers for the project, Mott, Hay and Anderson. The contractors responsible for the construction of the bridge, the Cementation Construction Company and Cleveland Bridge and Engineering, have worldwide experience in major construction projects. They are advised by Sir William Halcrow and Partners Ltd. The bridge is designed by Dr. Engineer Helmut Homburg, who has contributed to the development of the cable staybridge type, and has been responsible for the design of a number of cable staybridges, including the Kessoch bridge in Scotland.
    When my hon. Friend left his usual high standards was when he started to make jokes about people's names. I am exposed to that kind of joke rather often, and addressed to a fellow member of the European Community it does not go down too well.
    Mr. Hicks: My hon. Friend should be careful about this point. When criticising the civil servant whom he so rightly defended, I was only using criticism that is already clearly in the minutes of the Select Committee.
    Mr. Bottomley: I had not got on to dealing with what my hon. Friend said about an individually named civil servant. I was dealing with who was advising the Department and who was advising the concessionaires ad the people who designed the bridge. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that.
    Mr. Selby, the project manager, reports to his director, who is an expert bridge engineer. Mr. Selby has served the Department well for 19 years, and I and the Department have every confidence in him, and I shall return to defend him if he is further attacked about the design of bridges. Bridge design concerns bridge designers, and they were reasonably well represented in the Select Committee.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Minister said that it was always the Government's intention to listen carefully to the evidence. In that case, will he comment on the report in the Financial Times on 15 December last year, long before the Standing Committee sat, which said:
    "Parliament and politics: Bridge wind shield plan faces block. The Government is prepared, if necessary, to override any proposal by the cross-party Select Committee on the Dartford-Thurrock crossing that the planned bridge over the Thames should have a special wind shield."
    122
    It seems pretty clear that the Government leaks had made it well known to the press that they were going to block the wind shield proposal whatever happened.
    Mr. Bottomley: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman understands a word that he has read out. If I were the one who was recommending the decision to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I did not take that decision until after the further work and at the conclusion of the Standing Committee, any leak must have come from a very ropey old bucket.
    The hon. Members for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) and for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) put forward arguments. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West said that we needed to show more respect for the Select Committee's conclusions. We have shown that respect in our response, I have shown it in my speech and it is shown in the further work that was commissioned. Design, finance and building contracts can work only if the design is safe. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am convinced that if the Government were to design, finance and build the bridge we would reach the same conclusion as we are recommending to the House tonight. I recommend that the House accepts the amendment.
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 131, Noes 44.

    Division No. 191]

    [10.12 pm

    AYES

    Alexander, Richard

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Amess, David

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Amos, Alan

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Arbuthnot, James

    Forth, Eric

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Freeman, Roger

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    French, Douglas

    Atkinson, David

    Gale, Roger

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Gardiner, George

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Bellingham, Henry

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Boswell, Tim

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Bottomley, Peter

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Grist, Ian

    Brazier, Julian

    Ground, Patrick

    Bright, Graham

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Burt, Alistair

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

    Butler, Chris

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Harris, David

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hayward, Robert

    Cash, William

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Chope, Christopher

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Conway, Derek

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Irvine, Michael

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Jack, Michael

    Cope, John

    Janman, Tim

    Couchman, James

    Jessel, Toby

    Cran, James

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

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

    Key, Robert

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Day, Stephen

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Devlin, Tim

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Knapman, Roger

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Lang, Ian

    Dunn, Bob

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Durant, Tony

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Fallon, Michael

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Fearn, Ronald

    Lightbown, David

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Lilley, Peter

    123

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Lord, Michael

    Portillo, Michael

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Raffan, Keith

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Redwood, John

    Maclean, David

    Rhodes James, Robert

    McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

    Riddick, Graham

    Mans, Keith

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Miller, Hal

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Summerson, Hugo

    Moss, Malcolm

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Neubert, Michael

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Wood, Timothy

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Yeo, Tim

    Paice, James

    Patnick, Irvine

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and

    Pawsey, James

    Mr. Alan Howarth.

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    NOES

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Lewis, Terry

    Boyes, Roland

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Caborn, Richard

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Michael, Alun

    Dalyell, Tam

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

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

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Dewar, Donald

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Dicks, Terry

    Mullin, Chris

    Dixon, Don

    Parry, Robert

    Dover, Den

    Patchett, Terry

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Pike, Peter L.

    Fisher, Mark

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Flynn, Paul

    Reid, Dr John

    Galbraith, Sam

    Ruddock, Joan

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Skinner, Dennis

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Stott, Roger

    Haynes, Frank

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Hinchliffe, David

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Mr. Ted Garrett and

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Mr. Bob Cryer.

    Question according agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  Little Campaign
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
  10.21 pm
  Mr. Ted Garrett: I do not intend to delay the House unduly, but I should like to raise a matter that has been raised on many occasions — the problem of litter, including litter disposal and litter as a public nuisance. Sir Rupert Speir, who represented the constituency of Hexham, was successful with the private Member's Bill on this subject. Regrettably, the provisions of his Litter Act 1958 have not been implemented and are not being implemented today. We are all aware that the Prime Minister is deeply concerned about this matter and, on two occasions in recent months, she has made the problem of tackling the nation's litter a main issue, but so far without success.
  We can undoubtedly claim to be the dirtiest country in Europe. That is not much to brag about. We must recognise that litter is a national problem. Litter is basically rubbish. If people thought about litter as rubbish, they would put it in a bin or in a proper place, but they put rubbish in the wrong place and it becomes litter. Litter is a problem to every authority in the United Kingdom and it causes them great concern, as they must deal with it.
  I refer the Minister to a recent study by the industry council for the packaging industry. In a series of surveys over the past years, it has concluded that the public are showing more awareness of the scale of the problem than they did five years ago. The public are becoming more aware of the worsening situation, but, regrettably, they frequently display their indifference.
  As we well know, local authority staffing levels have been cut. As fewer resources are available, there are fewer people and machines to tackle the problem.
  However much local authorities do, the root of the problem is the attitude of the public. Although the public show some concern about the matter, we must recognise that there is massive indifference. We have all met people from time to time who moan about litter and who are ashamed of the filth in their area, but they do not do much about it. They do not seem to protest to councillors or form action groups or write to the local papers. They just sit back in the squalor that surrounds them.
  Fortunately, I represent a part of north Tyneside, which I share with the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter). We have a success story to tell. In north Tyneside, the problem has been tackled vigorously by the council. It has given responsibility to the environmental committee and the parks and recreation committee, the chairmen and officers of which have played an important role in keeping the standards in Tyne and Wear exceptionally high.
  On my visit to the north-east last weekend, I could not help but notice how clean the streets were. It was a Saturday afternoon when people were shopping and the streets had been in use most of the day, but they were spotless. I was proud of Tyne and Wear, particularly north Tyneside. I was proud to see such an area, which has got rid of its dereliction problems and some of its environmental problems through the decline of coal, shipbuilding and steel. The worst aspects of those industrial eyesores have disappeared and people are tackling improvements to their environment with renewed vigour.

  125
  I should like the Minister to go to north Tyneside in a few weeks' time, where he will see a massive spring floral display which equals, if not surpasses, anything to be found in the rest of the country. It is being done by local effort and must be seen to he believed. It is really beautiful.
  The council has won quite a few national competitions which have been sponsored by various organisations. Representatives of the staff on the council have come to the Palace of Westminster to receive awards and a residents' association received an award last year.
  We want other parts of the United Kingdom to try to follow our example. I should like the Prime Minister to come to Tyneside, especially north Tyneside, to see what can be done. If it can maintain high standards, why cannot the capital city? It must be an amazing experience for foreigners who visit London for the first time to arrive at Heathrow or Gatwick airport, for example, which are spotless, or to arrive at one of our mainline stations where the concourses are kept at a high level of cleanliness due to the efforts of British Rail and then step outside to see litter on every street, every corner and on railway embankments, and apathy about it all. I am appalled at the filth to be found in some parts of London. We can think of areas where valiant efforts have been made, but I regret to say that other areas are a sad story.
  I live in north London when Parliament is in session. Anyone who goes down Camden high street or Kentish Town road tonight will see filth and plastic bags piled up by the side of the road. Some bags are split and when the city goes to sleep, cats, rats and dogs will scratch them open, thus creating all the ingredients of a disease which could strike London.
  I cannot understand why allegedly responsible people, instead of keeping the plastic bags on their premises until collection, leave them out. I dare say that the same thing can be seen within 200 yd of this building. It must be caused by a breakdown in communications between the local authorities and the public or by plain ignorance on the part of the public. I fail to see why local authorities, encouraged by the Government, do not take a more positive line and explain to people the hazards that they are creating, irrespective of the fact that the poor council refuse collectors must sweep up the mess. I should like the Minister to urge councils to educate people to keep litter indoors until the time of collection.
  We have all seen the trails of litter from the entrances of the schools in our areas to the local shops where the school children buy their lunchtime trash—school meals having virtually been abolished—and, coming back after their lunch break, leave another trail of litter. Their parents would not let those children do that in their own houses. Why do they throw litter away instead of keeping it until they go home, or back to school, where they can put it into refuse bins?
  The teaching profession has opted out of part of the responsibility. Teachers do not educate children and enforce standards on them. Children should be responsible for their personal litter; they should put it in their pockets or in the school litter bins. Perhaps the problem is part of the general epidemic of indifference that has struck the nation—indifference, in this case, to our surroundings.
  Do people who have shops, commercial businesses or even blocks of flats have any responsibility for keeping the pavements and gutters in front of their premises in a tidy condition? If they have no legal responsibility, is it not time that we thought about the matter?
  126
  Let me return to the plight that faces our capital. I am fortunate enough to be a member of the Council of Europe, and to see quite a few of the European capitals. I blush with shame when I compare London with the cleanliness of Paris. I note one significant difference. Paris uses water to clean the streets, with hydrants connected to hoses. The rubbish is swilled down the streets to a collecting point. It is a clean and efficient method which saves labour, and also helps to remove any refuse left by dogs. I cannot understand why, when we are so close to a river the size of the Thames, water cannot be harnessed to clean our streets as it is in Paris and other cities.
  We must think hard about finding solutions to the problem. In many areas, there is a lack of civic pride. That pride has been dented for a variety of reasons. At one time, people were proud of their cities, towns and villages. Now there is an indifference which I find rather sad, having spent many years on a local authority.
  There is also a lack of national pride. We are indifferent to graffiti and litter. We must restore to people's minds the idea of improving their surrounds and conditions. We might give traffic wardens the power to impose on-the-spot fines on litterers. They could combine the jobs of traffic warden and litter warden.
  There is no doubt that attitudes must be changed. If there is a return to civic pride, there will be a sense of cleanliness as a nation and then there will be a better response, for example, in tourism. The tourists will return and notice with pride that London has something going for it—that it is smartening itself up and cleaning itself up. If London sets an example, the rest of the country will follow suit. North Tyneside has set the example. I ask the Minister to give an assurance that the matter will he given immediate and urgent study.
  10.35 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): It is some time since the House had an opportunity to debate a topic—litter —which affects us all, whether we live in cities, small towns, villages or the countryside. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) on his choice of subject.
  We all recognise how unsightly and offensive litter is and how it makes our surroundings less pleasant and, in some cases, even dangerous. Apart from the obvious impact that litter has on our environment, it also costs every one of us money, with public resources having to be expended on clearing up the mess. What makes this situation so appalling is that litter is unnecessary. It does not occur naturally; we create it ourselves through thoughtless actions and careless habits. With consideration and care, it could be avoided.
  The Government certainly share the widespread public concern about this issue—a concern which is reflected in my Department's postbag. Quite apart from the natural repugnance all of us feel about living in an untidy environment, it is unpleasant to learn of comments made by visitors from overseas, and by those returning from overseas, which contrast the state of our streets and countryside with those of other countries. The hon. Member for Wallsend referred to such comments. Although I cannot accept that Britain is the dirtiest country in Europe, I agree that we should be the cleanest, and that is the Government's objective.

  127
  The problem is not one that the Government alone can solve. The role of the Government in relation to the litter problem is twofold: first, to ensure that the right legislative framework exists to tackle the problem—I think that we have achieved this—and, secondly, to create a climate of opinion in which to foster a change of public attitudes. The question we must ask is: why do people who are clean and tidy in their home become insensitive and inconsiderate in public places? Perhaps it is a feeling that it is someone else's job to clear up the mess— a feeling that "they", whether Government, local authorities, British Rail or whoever, should do something about it.
  The ultimate remedy lies in the hands of each individual member of the public—use litter bins, or take rubbish home. In short, do not create litter. That is easy to say but less easy to bring into effect. There are two essential approaches: one via legal constraints, the other via persuasion and education.
  Under the Litter Act 1983, it is an offence to drop litter in the open air — with a penalty of a fine up to a maximum of £400. There are about 1,600 prosecutions a year. We have tightened up the law to make enforcement more effective by making it an offence for a suspected litterer not to give his name and address to a police officer on demand. Nevertheless, given the very great pressures on the police, there are problems with enforcement.
  For this reason, we are particularly interested in the progress, and, if it is enacted, the eventual operation of the Westminster City Bill, which contains a power to introduce fixed penalties for litter. The city council proposes to use its 50-strong multi-purpose inspectorate to help enforce the measure, under which offenders will be asked to pick up the litter they have dropped. Any who refuse to do so will be issued with a fixed penalty ticket, to be paid within 14 days. The Government have given this Bill a fair wind and, if it is enacted, we shall monitor its operation closely with the council. If it is successful, it may prove to be a suitable model for wider application.
  In addition, there are various powers that local authorities, in their capacity as litter authorities, can use if they wish. This is important since, although the problem is often described as a national one, it does vary from locality to locality. Thus, local authorities may, if they decide to give the matter appropriate priority, appoint litter wardens for their areas. A number have already done so.
  Mr. Garrett: Will litter wardens have the same powers as traffic wardens? Will they have the power to impose on-the-spot fines?
  Mr. Chope: No. We have considered the use of traffic wardens to enforce the Litter Act 1983, but the traffic warden service is already hard-pressed nationally to cope with its existing responsibilities to support police efforts to enforce road traffic laws. There is strong pressure for better enforcement of parking restrictions to reduce accidents and to keep traffic moving. It would not be sensible to add to that burden.
  On-the-spot fines are often mooted as a simple and effective way of enforcing litter legislation. However, there would be major difficulties — for example, accounting for cash collected; the risk to the police or anyone else carrying substantial amounts of cash; and dealing with offenders who do not have funds available on the spot. For
  128
  those reasons we have rejected those ideas. As I said, Westminster city council is seeking to obtain legislative approval for a new approach.
  I should like to think that a significant role will also be played by competition for street cleansing when the Local Government Bill becomes an Act. One of the first effects of competition will be to make local authorities set out very clearly what work they want to be done in this service, as in the other services concerned. Clarity of purpose can have nothing but beneficial effects on results achieved.
  The second main effect will be to increase the efficiency with which the work is carried out. Perhaps, with more money available as a result of such efficiency gains, the authorities with the worst litter problems will then be able to step up the standard of litter cleaning.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the London borough of Camden. As he will probably know, it is one of the highest spending councils in the country. Despite its high levels of expenditure, it does not seem to be able to cope with the problem of litter, which I am sure most of its residents would regard as a high priority. It is a question not of councils not having the money but of them not giving sufficient priority to resolving the litter problem and not running their refuse collection and street cleansing services as efficiently as many of them could.
  The need for voluntary local efforts brings me to the second prong of our approach to the problem. The Government have, for a number of years, supported the Tidy Britain Group, a registered charity formed under the original name of Keep Britain Tidy. In the current year, the group is receiving a grant of £570,000 from the national taxpayer towards its objective of promoting the prevention and control of litter. The group also obtains sponsorship from private sources, and it organises competitions, such as the "Beautiful Britain in Bloom" competition, which is financed by Barratts and the Kentucky Fried Chicken awards and trophies.
  As the hon. Gentleman has said, North Tyneside metropolitan borough council has been particularly successful in this competition. The council has reached the finals of the Kentucky Fried Chicken competition every year since its inception, and it won it in 1978, 1983 and 1986. I am pleased to add my congratulations on such efforts. I am sure that many members of the Government, given the opportunity, would be happy to visit North Tyneside and see what gives it such an advantage in those competitions.
  The main activities of the Tidy Britain Group are concentrated in two main sectors. First, it has devised a comprehensive litter abatement programme — the community environment programme—which is focused on district and borough councils and trains local authority officers in techniques of litter abatement, by enlisting public support, working with local industry and commerce and with voluntary organisations. I understand that 113 local authorities have so far formally adopted the programme, that 19 are considering its adoption and that nine have partially adopted it. We give every encouragement to local authorities to take up the group's community environment programme. It is inevitable that the results of this approach will take time to come through, but we are encouraged by the results so far.
  The second aspect of the group's activity concentrates on education. As part of its education programme, the group has produced a range of learning kits for use in schools, and a youth action pact for youth group activities.

  129
  They have proved particularly valuable. They have the twofold benefit of obtaining practical results for today as well as offering a sound investment for society for the future. In addition — I think that it can rightly be considered as part of the educational effort—the group and my Department have co-operated to make a number of short promotional films that we hope the television companies will pick up and use to encourage a more responsible attitude towards litter prevention.
  I do not underestimate the role of members of the teaching profession. I am not sure that all schools adopt the attitude of the one at the end of my garden. On a summer's day, after the children have spent a morning in the playground, the head teacher goes out to the playground and says, "Before you go back into school, you must clear up all the litter in the playground." Many of the playgrounds of the schools that I have seen are filled with litter. That is not setting the right example for children at an impressionable age.
  The Tidy Britain Group has, at our request, reviewed its strategy and approach, and we are considering with it how to achieve greater effectiveness.
  Local authorities clearly have a major part to play, and I hope that others will adopt the same approach as North Tyneside, to which I have already referred. The priority and resources that authorities choose to devote to litter abatement and clearance are for them to decide, but I should like to encourage them to work with the Tidy Britain Group, local businesses and local voluntary groups to tackle the local problems and to promote civic pride.
  Business interests can play a major role. For example, the growth of the fast food industry has brought its own
  130
  litter problems. Customers are not always as responsible in disposing of food and drink containers as we would wish. The Take-Away Food Federation (UK) Ltd. is therefore to be congratulated on the production of a booklet entitled "Less Litter, Better Business", giving guidance to proprietors of such establishments about the proper disposal of the potential litter that they create.
  Drawn up in conjunction with the Tidy Britain Group, the booklet covers such matters as the provision of posters and signs in the premises carrying the anti-litter message, and the provision of litter bins and litter patrols by staff. Adoption of such measures by more proprietors, along with the Tidy Britain Group message on containers, will add to the efforts to educate the public about litter.
  A great deal has been and is being done to deal with this unpleasant and unnecessary problem. We, and all sectors of society, must continue to seek ways to strengthen and reinforce our efforts. The Tidy Britain Group has been invited to take a fresh look at its activities and to show how a new impetus can be achieved. We are always ready to receive ideas and suggestions on how the problems can best be tackled.
  The hon. Member for Wallsend, in initiating this debate this evening, has made a valuable contribution towards increasing public understanding and awareness. He made it apparent that it is basically a matter of common sense, and there has not been sufficient common sense applied to it by enough people.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Neighbourhood Watch Programme (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on Gloucestershire's neighbourhood watch programme, with particular regard to its involvement with the Manpower Services Commission and the community programme.

  Mr. John Patten
  I understand that there are now 228 neighbourhood watch schemes in the county of Gloucestershire. In an effort to sustain these schemes and to initiate new ones, the Gloucestershire community programme home watch project was launched on 25 January with the appointment of the project co-ordinator. The project is funded as part of the Manpower Services Commission community programme crime prevention initiative. It is managed on behalf of Gloucestershire police by Gloucestershire county council and, when recruiting is completed, will comprise the co-ordinator, an assistant co-ordinator and 11 workers. They will help to arrange the first meetings of new schemes, provide speakers for neighbourhood watch meetings and produce a quarterly news journal. I welcome, and commend, this imaginative scheme. Like similar schemes in other parts of the country, it will provide valuable support to the police in managing the growth of neighbourhood watch.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many civil servants are employed in his Department; what are their average weekly working hours, and how many are(a) on flexitime, (b) on job-sharing schemes, (c) on a four-day working week or nine-day fortnight and (d) able to retire with full pension rights at 60 years.

  Mr. Hurd
  There are some 38,600 staff in the Home Office. Conditioned hours are 41 hours a week in London and 42 elsewhere, inclusive of meal breaks. Prison officers' hours are 39 hours a week net of meal breaks, but they can opt to work a 48-hour week and the majority do so. About 11,000 members of staff are eligible to participate in flexible working hours schemes and some 8,000 do so. At least 32 members of staff are on job-sharing schemes. Information is not readily available about the number of staff who are on a four-day working week or nine-day fortnight. About 18,500 members of staff — in prison service grades — have a minimum retiring age of 55 years. Most of the rest have a minimum retiring age of 60, except for some 3,000 industrial staff, whose retirement age is 65. It is not possible to estimate the number of staff who could achieve 40 years' reckonable service for pension purposes by the age of 60.

  Phonographic Performance Ltd.
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions his Department has had with Phonographic Performance Ltd. about alleged needle time restrictions on the broadcast of music on independent radio stations; and what assurances have been received from Phonographic Performance Ltd. that needle time restrictions no longer exist.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions his Department has had with Phonographic Performance Ltd. about alleged needle time restrictions on the broadcast of music on independent radio stations; and what assurances have been received from Phonographic Performance Ltd. that needle time restrictions no longer exist.

  Mr. Renton
  Discussions have taken place with Phonographic Performance Ltd. on a range of issues. Phonographic Performance Ltd. has made it clear that, while the present nine-hour needle time limit is not immutable, it would expect to secure substantial payment from substantial users for any increase.

  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he as as to how many independent radio stations pay £30 or more per record to Phonographic Performance Ltd. for the broadcast of single play records.

  Mr. Renton
  I understand that no station pays Phonographic Performance Ltd. £30 or more per record.

  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what information he has as to the average price per record paid by independent radio stations to Phonographic Performance Ltd. for the broadcasting of single play records;

  (2) what information he has as to the highest price per record paid by independent radio stations to Phonographic Performance Ltd. for the broadcasting, of single play records; and by how much this exceeds the average.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what information he has as to the average price per record paid by independent radio stations to Phonographic Performance Ltd. for the broadcasting of single play records;

  (2) what information he has as to the highest price per record paid by independent radio stations to Phonographic Performance Ltd. for the broadcasting of single play records; and by how much this exceeds the average.

  Mr. Renton
  I understand that Phonographic Performance Ltd. has estimated that the average fee for the broadcasting of single play records by independent local stations is £1·26 per play. The highest fee paid is over £17. Broadly similar fees are also payable to the Performing Rights Society.

  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to the overall percentage of net advertising revenue paid by independent radio stations to Phonographic Peformance Ltd for the broadcast of recorded music.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to the overall
  3
  percentage of net advertising revenue paid by independent radio stations to Phonographic Performance Ltd for the broadcast of recorded music.

  Mr. Renton
  The fees were determined by the Performing Right Tribunal in 1986. Established independent local radio stations are required to pay Phonographic Performance Ltd 4 per cent. of the first £1·25 million of net advertising revenue, and 7 per cent. thereafter, for the right to broadcast nine hours of recorded music each day. Broadly similar fees are also payable to the Performing Right Society.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to how many independent radio stations pay £10 or more per record to Phonographic Performance Ltd for the broadcast of single play records.

  Mr. Renton
  I understand that one such station now pays Phonographic Performance Ltd above this rate.

  Community Radio
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the address of the radio authority that is to issue licences to run community radio stations; and if he will make a statment.

  Mr. Renton
  The radio authority will be established under legislative proposals which my right hon. Friend has yet to bring before Parliament.

  Murders
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many murders were committed in 1987.

  Mr. John Patten
  In the absence of a court decision it is not always possible to distinguish between offences of murder, manslaughter and infanticide; they are known collectively as homicide. Statistics on offences initially recorded as homicide and on offences decided to be murder are published in table 4.2 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales", Cm. 233—for data up to the end of 1986—copies of which are available in the Library. Statistics on offences recorded as homicide for 1987 are not yet available.

  Broadcasting Complaints Commission
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will refer to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission the risk that obscenities may be broadcast as a result of the implantation of microphones in cricket pitches; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  It is the responsibility of the broadcasting authorities to ensure that nothing is included in programmes which offends against good taste or decency. The commission is limited to considering and adjudicating on complaints of unjust or unfair treatment or unwarranted infringement of privacy arising out of broadcast programmes.

  Independent Radio (Needletime Restrictions)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to what needletime restrictions exist to limit the air play of recorded music on independent radio.
  4
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to what needletime restrictions exist to limit the air play of recorded music on independent radio.

  Mr. Renton
  In general, independent local radio stations are limited to broadcasting nine hours of recorded music within the repertoire of Phonographic Performance Ltd. each day, even though most ILR stations now broadcast for 24 hours a day.

  Convicted Murderers
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many previously convicted murderers, having been released from prison, have committed a further murder, since the abolition of capital punishment.

  Mr. John Patten
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to a question from my hon. Friend for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) on 5 November 1987, at columns 1054–55.

  Immigration (Entry Clearance)
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were waiting to be interviewed by immigration in Birmingham in connection with applications for entry clearance for members of their family to join them in the United Kingdom at 31 December 1987.

  Mr. Renton
  At 31 December 1987, there were 130 outstanding entry clearance applications awaiting interview of persons living in the Birmingham area. All have either now been completed or have appointments arranged before 31 March 1988.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are employed in interviewing people whose relatives have applied for entry clearance to join them in the United Kingdom and whose applications have been referred to his Department by entry clearance officers abroad; and where these interviewers are located.

  Mr. Renton
  The information requested in the first part of the question is not available. The number of immigration service staff employed in such interviews varies daily and they form only part of the responsibility of the officers involved.

  The majority of interviews are conducted by officers based at the following immigration offices: Aberdeen, Avonmouth, Belfast, Birmingham, Cardiff, Dover, Edinburgh, East Midlands airport, Felixstowe, Folkestone, Glasgow, Gravesend, Hartlepool, Hull, Immingham, Liverpool, Luton airport, Manchester airport, Middlesbrough, Newcastle airport, North Shields, Norwich airport, Plymouth, Preston, Prestwick airport, Ramsgate, Sheerness, Southampton, Southend airport and Stansted airport.

  Domestic Assaults
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has to which police forces in England and Wales produce separate figures on the number of reported domestic assaults each year.
  5
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No regular information on the number of domestic assaults is reported separately to the Department by police forces in England and Wales.

  Independent Radio Air Time
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to the percentage of independent radio air time taken up by the playing of recorded music.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to the percentage of independent radio air time taken up by the playing of recorded music.

  Mr. Renton
  This information is not readily available.

  Lunar House, Croydon
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the length of time for which the public enumerator board has been out of action at the public inquiry office at Lunar house, Croydon; and what steps he is taking to ensure that it is operative.

  Mr. Renton
  The enumerator board in the immigration public inquiry office at Lunar house was out of action for three months. It is now fully operational.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the purpose of the visit by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) to Lunar house, Croydon, on Friday 12 February; and how long he spent in meetings with the trades unions.

  Mr. Renton
  I visited Lunar house on Friday 12 February to discuss with officials in the immigration and nationality department proposals to speed up the handling of the backlog of citizenship applications. I announced the specific steps we are taking on Tuesday 16 February at columns 862–63. I did not meet the trades unions on 12 February but, because of their great concern, which was reported to me, I plan to do so on Tuesday 23 February.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate how many of the unopened items of mail presently at Lunar house, Croydon, relate to(a) applications for citizenship and (b) variations of leave.

  Mr. Renton
  Ninety five thousand applications for citizenship are unopened and a further 54,000 applications for citizenship have been opened but not acknowledged; 58,000 other items of mail, many of them relating to variations of leave, are unopened.

  Visas
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the numbers of visas granted to visitors at immigration control for the full six-month period, the numbers of visitors' visas refused and the numbers of visitors' visas granted for a period of less than six months for(a) the week commencing 2 February and (b) the week commencing 9 February.

  Mr. Renton
  The information requested is not available. Figures on passenger admissions by period of 6
  leave granted for the whole of February will become available later this year when all the relevant landing cards have been received and counted.

  Rodeos (South-West England)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to the conduct of horse rodeos in south-west England; what action he is taking to prevent cruelty to horses used in such rodeos; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no information on such events. However, under the Protection of Animals Act 1934 it is an offence to promote or permit a public performance which includes throwing or casting, with ropes or other appliances, any unbroken horse; or to ride or attempt to ride any horse which has been cruelly stimulated to make it buck. More generally, the Protection of Animals Act 1911 makes it an offence to cause, or being the owner permit to be caused, any unnecessary suffering to any domestic or captive animal.

  Breathalysers
  Sir Ian Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will issue guidelines for chief constables to the effect that they should encourage the voluntary introduction an use of wall-mounted coin-in-the-slot breathalysers and breathalyser ignition locks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The clear message must be that drinking and driving do not mix. We welcome the way in which chief officers are helping to get this message across but are not convinced that their efforts would be assisted by asking them to encourage the use of self-testing devices.

  Interception of Communications Act
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the working of the Interception of Communications Act, with particular regard to mobile telephones; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  I have no reason to believe that there are any difficulties over the working of the Interception of Communications Act in this respect. The interception of calls on mobile telephone systems which have been designated as public telecommunication systems under the Telecommunications Act 1984 is covered by the Interception of Communications Act 1985.

  Cremation Certificates
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will end the requirement for two doctors to sign cremation certificates; and by how much funeral costs would be reduced if this requirement ceased, as recommended in the Broderick report.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We arc considering this possibility. The fee currently recommended by the British Medical Association for the completion of the confirmatory medical certificate for cremation is £19·65.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Solicitors (Costs)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Attorney-General if the Lord Chancellor will take steps to ensure that solicitors, when attending their clients at remand centres, have their costs fully met under the legal aid schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Solicitors who attend clients at remand centres are entitled to their costs under a criminal legal aid order provided that the determining officer who considers their claim is satisfied that the attendance was reasonable. The solicitor is allowed either his own reasonable costs or the costs reasonably incurred in instructing a solicitor local to the remand centre to attend on his behalf.

  Immigration (Appeals)
  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will take steps to expedite the hearing of appeals under section 13(ii) of the Immigration Act 1971.

  The Attorney-General
  Following the transfer of administrative responsibility for the immigration appellate authorities to my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, the working methods and procedures of the authorities have been under review. Once an appeal has been lodged with the immigration appellate authorities, it is open to any party to that appeal to apply for an early hearing.

  Mrs. Angela Pink
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Attorney-General what information he has as to whether the Director of Public Prosecutions has yet reached a decision on the possible prosecution of Nottingham city councillor Mrs. Angela Pink; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as I am able to inform him of the outcome of the Director's consideration of this case.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Food Surpluses
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with aid Ministers of the European Economic Community as to the future use of food surpluses.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I discuss food aid with other European Community aid Ministers at regular intervals. But food surpluses and the common agricultural policy are a matter for agriculture Ministers.

  Southern Africa
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made on the development of infrastructure projects in the Southern Africa Development Co-ordination Conference region.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  SADCC has commended to donors a large number of infrastructure projects, in particular in the regional transport field. Good progress is being made 8
  with support from Britain and other countries on rehabilitating rail routes through Mozambique, and work will begin shortly on the northern transport corridor linking Malawi to Dar-es-Salaam, for which I have approved a British contribution of £12·4 million.

  Ethiopia
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will consider assisting the World Food Programme in obtaining the powdered milk, vegetable oil and protein-rich biscuits required in Ethiopia for children under the age of 14 years.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  No request has been made to us by the world food programme. We are aware of the need for food to supplement the basic diet on Ethiopia and have provided £189,000 to meet the cost of 1,000 tonnes of beans which are being distributed by the International Committee of the Red Cross. We shall also be meeting our share of the cost of the substantial qualities of supplementary food being provided by the European Community.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to ensure that famine aid to Ethiopia is reaching the intended recipients.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The assistance we provide is generally channelled through international and voluntary agencies with extensive experience of getting relief quickly and effectively to those in need. It is carefully monitored to ensure it reaches the intended beneficiaries.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he plans to make to the Ethiopian Government, in the light of recent consignments of corned beef that have been shipped from that country into the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I have no plans to make further representations to the Ethiopian Government on the subject of exports of corned beef from that country to the United Kingdom. The availability of corned beef does not seem relevant to the famine problem now affecting large numbers of Ethiopians; and exports of that commodity should bring in much needed foreign exchange.

  Aid Statistics
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the proportion of the United Kingdom's gross national product devoted to overseas development in 1960 and for the latest annual period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The proportion of the United Kingdom's gross national product devoted to overseas development in 1960 was 0·56 per cent. In 1986 it was 0·32 per cent.

  Tropical Rain Forests
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures the Government are taking to encourage sustainable development in areas of the world where tropical rain forests are at risk.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The Government support the FAO tropical forestry action plan and is a member of the
  9
  International Tropical Timber Organisation, both of which are concerned with the sustainable use and appropriate conservation of tropical rainforests.

  Our expenditure on bilateral aid projects in the forestry sector has increased threefold to £13 million in 1986. We provide further support through technical co-operation, research programmes and the joint funding scheme.

  International Debt
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the chairman of the World Bank regarding the problem of international debt.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 1 February, at column 459.

  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in implementing the debt initiative for the most debt-ridden countries, following the endorsement of that initiative at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting and by their finance Ministers.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor's initiative has been well received. Some aid donors have announced the write-off of more aid debt; the United Kingdom has already almost completed this process of converting aid loans into grants and others are following our example. Seven of the poorest, most heavily indebted sub-Saharan countries pursuing sound economic policies have had their official debts rescheduled for longer than normal by the Paris Club. We continue to press our partners to accept lower Paris Club interest rates for countries eligible for the initiative.

  India (Departmental Advisers and Officials)
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many advisers and officials from his Department are currently working in India in connection with phase II of the family welfare project in Orissa; when they went to India; and when he expects them to return.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Two ODA advisers worked in India in connection with the pre-appraisal of this project from 1 to 12 February. One returned on 15 February and I expect the team leader to return on 23 February.

  Tanzania (Population Census)
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the East African development division of the Overseas Development Administration to complete its assessment of the request for financial assistance with the preparation of the Tanzania 1988 population census; and if he will take steps to ensure that the census is not put in jeopardy as a result of the time taken by the Overseas Development Administration to deal with this request.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The British development division in Eastern Africa will complete the assessment in question by the end of this month. This timetable is compatible with the plans of the Tanzanian authorities to hold the population census later this year.

WALES

  Agricultural Services
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any proposals for the future provision of offices providing agricultural services in north Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  No. I consider the existing provision to be suitable for present purposes.

  Community Councils
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he proposes to include community councils in the distribution of resources to local government from Government grant and the national uniform business rate.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  No. Community councils will meet their expenditure requirements by drawing on a collection fund maintained by the district council.

  Sheep Monitoring
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) when monitoring of live sheep on a general basis was introduced in the restricted areas of Wales following the Chernobyl accident;

  (2) how many scintillators were available to, and used by, his Department for the live monitoring of sheep in the restricted areas of Wales in each month from May 1986 to May 1987.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The option of live-monitoring sheep became generally available to producers in the north Wales restricted area from the beginning of October 1986. From October 1986 to February 1987, a total of 10 live monitoring machines were generally in use and from March 1987 to May 1987 there were 15 machines.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Unfunded Students
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the numbers of unfunded students at universities in(a) Wales arid England and (b) Scotland in each of the past five years; and what is his policy towards such students.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information is not available in the form requested, but I will write to the hon. Member.

  Primary and Secondary School Pupils
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many pupils have been enrolled at each primary and secondary school in the Eddisbury constituency in each of the past 10 years; and what has been the pupil-to-teacher ratio in each year.

  Mr. Dunn
  Information on pupil numbers for areas smaller than local education authorities is not available centrally. The number of pupils on roll in all maintained primary and secondary schools in Cheshire and the pupil-teacher ratios within these schools in each of the last 10 years is given in the table.
  11

  Primary schools1

  Secondary schools1

  January each year

  Pupils2

  Pupil-teacher ratio

  Pupils

  Pupil-teacher ratio

  1978

  100,846

  24·0

  77,542

  17·4

  1979

  97,858

  23·5

  78,945

  16·9

  1980

  94,592

  23·5

  79,671

  16·7

  1981

  90,753

  23·6

  79,567

  16·7

  1982

  86,454

  23·3

  79,306

  17·1

  1983

  81,917

  22·6

  78,796

  16·8

  1984

  79,127

  22·7

  77,481

  16·9

  1985

  77,396

  22·8

  76,201

  17·0

  1986

  77,227

  22·7

  73,816

  17·0

  1987

  80,957

  23·2

  70,861

  16·7

  1 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2 Full-time equivalent pupils, part-time pupils counted as 0·5.

  Inner London Education Authority
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will place in the Library a copy of Her Majesty's inspectorate's report on the effects of abolition of the Inner London education authority.

  Mr. Dunn
  No.

  Community Schools
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what provision he is making to ensure that the community and adult functions obtain full and comprehensive representation on the governing bodies of community schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  The Education (No. 2) Act 1986 provides for school governing bodies to comprise representatives of parents, teachers, the local authority, the foundation in the case of voluntary schools and, by co-option, the community served by the school. In making their co-options, governing bodies will be able to secure such representation of other interests as is considered appropriate in the light of the school's circumstances.

  Rates (Cleveland)
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has as to the amount in money terms by which that part of the rates bill in Cleveland attributable to educational buildings will increase in 1988–89.

  Mr. Dunn
  None. Authorities finance their expenditure from a variety of sources. It is not possible to attribute any element of the rates bill to a particular item of expenditure.

  St. Bartholomew's, Swanley
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has received on new buildings for St. Bartholomew's Roman Catholic junior, middle and infants school, Swanley, Kent; and when he expects to make a statement about those schools.

  Mr. Dunn
  The Department has paid grant in respect of the provision of a mobile classroom at the school. We have received no other proposals from the Kent local education authority, though we understand that a second mobile classroom has recently been provided.

  University Funding
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) of 11 February,Official Report, column 313–4, what is the percentage change in real terms, measured by the gross domestic product deflator, in the funding of each university by the University Grants Committee between 1980–81 and 1988–89, excluding those amounts representing compensation for changes in home student fees, compensation for redundancy and early retirement, changes to take account of minor capital works from the recurrent grant and changes in the level of local authority rates (a) including and (b) excluding additions made for the information technology and new blood programmes;

  (2) pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) of 11 February, Official Report, column 313–4, what is the percentage change in the funding of each university by the University Grants Committee between 1980–81 and 1988–89, excluding those amounts representing compensation for changes in home student fees, for redundancy and early retirement, changes to take account of minor capital works from the recurrent grant, changes in the level of local authority rates, additions made for the information technology and new blood programmes.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information is not available to make the requested deductions. In any event, like would not be being compared with like since my announcement related only to initial allocations for 1988–89.

  Morley College
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has developed any proposals for financing Morley college when the Inner London education authority is abolished.

  Mr. Jackson
  Adult education is one of a number of issues arising from the abolition of the ILEA on which my right hon. Friend has made it clear that he will wish to seek the views of the boroughs. In doing so he will naturally wish to consider the situation of Morley college.

  Orthotists
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what provision his Department is making to ensure an adequate supply of orthotists and prosthetists in the short and long term; and if he will make a statement.
  13
  Mr. Jackson
  Courses are provided by the Paddington college and the practical training is provided by the London School of Prosthetics and by individual companies.

  The Disablement Services Authority is responsible for the provision of prosthetic services and it is holding discussions with the Orthotic and Prosthetic Training and Education Council about the most suitable arrangements for the future supply of trained practitioners in these disciplines in England and Wales.

  Core Subjects
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will estimate the proportion of school time currently spent on core subjects in(a) inner London and (b) England and Wales.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Information about the percentages of pupil time spent on core curriculum subjects in England is given in the table. No figures are available for indivdual local education authorities in England. Education in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Junior classes

  Secondary year groups 1 to 5

  English

  26·7

  13·8

  Mathematics

  22·3

  13·3

  Science

  6·5

  13·9

  TOTAL

  55·5

  41·0

  Note:

  1. Junior classes do not include infant classes, but do include secondary-age classes in middle schools deemed primary.

  2. The junior figures are as at March 1987, taken from the Primary School Staffing Survey.

  3. The secondary figures are as at January 1984, taken from the 1984 Secondary School Staffing Survey.

  Research Organisations
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the names, locations and broad areas of work covered by the 10 largest public research organisations in the United Kingdom ranking these according to staff numbers, turnover and net cost to the United Kingdom in 1986–87.

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

  New Schools (East Sussex)
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many new schools have been opened in east Sussex since 3 May 1979 and how many between 3 May 1971 and 3 May 1979.

  Mr. Dunn
  Since 3 May 1979, nine new schools, including nursery and special schools, have been opened, five of which are replacement schools. From the reorganisation of local government on 1 April 1974 to 3 May 1979, a total of 24 schools were opened, of which nine were replacements. Numbers before 1974 are not available. Replacements include transferred schools and schools opened following school reorganisation.

  Teacher-Pupil Ratios
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the teacher-pupil ratio on the latest 14
  available date for infant, primary and secondary schools in England, in east Sussex and in the borough of Eastbourne; and what were the comparable figures for the available date closest to 3 May 1979.

  Mr. Dunn
  The pupil-teacher ratio in maintained infant, primary and secondary schools in England and east Sussex in January 1979 and January 1987 are given in the table. Information for areas within local education authorities is not available centrally.

  Pupil-teacher ratios within schools

  England

  East Sussex

  January 1979

  January 1987

  January 1979

  January 1987

  Infant

  21·7

  21·2

  22·1

  21·6

  Primary1 2

  23·1

  21·9

  23·4

  22·4

  Secondary2

  16·7

  15·6

  17·1

  16·4

  1 Includes infant schools.

  2 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  Examination Results
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if his Department has made further progress since 1984 in analysing local educational authority examination results, taking into account socio-economic factors.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department has not published any further analysis of the effects of socio-economic factors on local education authority examination results since statistical bulletin 13/84 — "School Standards and Spending: Statistical Analysis".

  Education Reform
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, in the event of Inner London education authority abolition, what arrangements he intends to make for the supplies service and the percentage of customers who are local education authorities outside inner London.

  Mr. Dunn
  My right hon. Friend has made it clear that we wish to discuss with the inner London boroughs the future arrangements for services currently provided by ILEA on a Londonwide basis. The Supplies Organisation will be one such service. Information on the customers of the Supplies Organisation is not held centrally.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for the providing of research and planning resources currently provided by the Inner London education authority should that authority be abolished.

  Mr. Dunn
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 18 February at column 648.

PRIME MINISTER

  Dollar (Value)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister, further to her statement on the meeting of the European Council, 15 February,Official Report, columns 705–17, whether she will publish in the Official Report the value of the dollar agreed for exceptional circumstances; and what call would

  15
  be made on the contingency reserve if the nominal rate for the dollar fell to reduce the real rate, in terms of relative export prices for manufacturers, to the average for 1978–80.

  The Prime Minister
  The dollar reference rate for the operation of this reserve has yet to be determined, but the assumption which the Commission has used in revising its preliminary draft budget for 1988 is $1 = 0·85 ecu.

  On the basis of relative GDP/GNP price movements, this exchange rate appears to imply a real rate of exchange similar to the average for 1978–80. It follows that there would be no call on the monetary reserve in the circumstances postulated.

  EC (Financial Contribution)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister, further to her statement on the meeting of the EEC Council, 15 February,Official Report, columns 705–17, whether she will include in the Official Report her estimates of the amount now made available to the EEC under our reserves, including the United Kingdom rebate, in terms of the original value added tax contributions.

  The Prime Minister
  The new ceiling on the Community's own resources, excluding the United Kingdom's abatement, of 1·2 per cent. of Community gross national product is equivalent to a 1·9 per cent. value added tax ceiling defined as at present to include the United Kingdom abatement. The corresponding abatement-exclusive VAT figure is 1·72 per cent.

  EC (Spain and Portugal)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister why Spain and Portugal have been excluded from some of the agricultural arrangements agreed by the EEC Council of Ministers; whether their output will qualify for other kinds of support; what is their production of the items in question and whether it is expected to increase; and whether the EEC will provide any money to support production or dispose of the surpluses.

  The Prime Minister
  Separate arrangements apply to Spain and Portugal either because of the provisions of the accession treaty or because of special decisions of the European Council. Although Spain and Portugal currently operate many of the common agricultural policy support arrangements, this is on a transitional basis. Data on production are contained in Document COM(87)1 Final, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Pound Sterling
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she took into account the increase in the value of the pound sterling against the deutschmark in the negotiations in Brussels on 11 to 13 February; what value is placed on the pound sterling in the present level of common agricultural policy prices; to what extent United Kingdom common agricultural policy prices will have to be changed to reflect the value of the pound sterling against the deutschmark; and what would be the effect on United Kingdom common agricultural policy prices if the real value of the pound sterling, measured in terms of relative export prices for manufacturers, fell to the level which obtained in the fourth quarter of 1976.
  16
  The Prime Minister
  All relevant considerations were taken into account during the recent negotiations in Brussels.

  Common agricultural policy prices are set in ecus and converted into sterling using green rates and not market rates of exchange. The United Kingdom green rates are currently:

  Arable products—1 ecu = £0·656148

  Beef—1 ecu = £0·710546

  Pigmeat—1 ecu = £0·694266

  Sheepmeat—1 ecu = £0·652575

  Other sectors—1 ecu = £0·665557

  Common agricultural policy prices in the United Kingdom are not directly affected by the sterling/deutschmark exchange rate. However, under arrangements agreed in 1987, green rates will be altered following any European monetary system realignment if the net effect of the realignment of the central rates of all EMS currencies including the deutschmark is to widen the gap between green and market rates of exchange. Apart from these arrangements, there is no mechanism directly relating to CAP prices in the United Kingdom to any particular market value of sterling.

  Alternative Land Use
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the definition of arable land used in the set-aside scheme referred to in her statement on the meeting of the European Council, 15 February,Official Report, column 706; how the area of arable land is to be assessed in each case; and what checks there will be against fraud.

  The Prime Minister
  Discussions are continuing on the details of the set-aside scheme agreed in principle by the European Council, including the points referred to by the hon. Member.

  Commodity Stabilisers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will publish in the Official Report the agreement on stabilisers for the eight commodities referred to in her statement on the meeting of the European Council (Brussels), 15 February, Official Report column 705.

  The Prime Minister
  As I made clear in my statement to the House on 15 February, agreement on stabilisers for eight commodities — those other than cereals and oil seeds—has been delayed by France until the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council on 22–23 February. The text to be adopted appears as points 4 to 11 of document SN 461/88 which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  EC (Overspending)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the legal and binding controls which have been agreed for expenditure under the common agricultural policy will operate to terminate the price guarantees once the money has been used up or whether the EEC will be allowed to borrow against the next year's provision or make other arrangements outside the budget of the kind used to finance overspending in the past.

  The Prime Minister
  The detailed European Council conclusions provide for legally binding limits on agricultural expenditure, supported by automatic stabiliser mechanisms in the individual product regimes.
  17
  They further provide that when there is a risk of agricultural expenditure exceeding the budget limits, the Commission shall take remedial action whether by use of its own management powers—including the operation of the new stabilisers—or by making additional proposals to the Council. The Council is committed to acting within two months in order to remedy the situation.

  EC Stocks (Depreciation)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister, further to her statement on the meeting of the EEC Council, 15 February,Official Report, columns 705–17, why the cost depreciation on EEC stocks has not been written off under the guidelines; and under what provision of the treaty of Rome the Commission was entitled not to include real depreciation in the annual budget.

  The Prime Minister
  The cost of depreciating old stocks is to be met outside the financial guidelines in order to restrict the resources available within the guidelines and hence to limit agricultural spending for the future. The cost of depreciating old stocks has built up because there has been no legal requirement on the Commission systematically to depreciate stocks to their market level.

  Agricultural Prices
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the arrangements for agriculture agreed at the Brussels meeting of the EEC Council of Ministers is expected to reduce the difference between common agricultural policy prices and world prices, having regard to the expected increases in yields and labour productivity; and if she will provide a forecast of the effect in each of the principal products.

  The Prime Minister
  Reductions in levels of common agricultural policy support consequent upon the agreement reached at the Brussels European Council will result in the difference between Community prices and world prices being smaller than they otherwise would have been. The precise effect cannot be forecast because it will depend on a larger number of factors which cannot be predicted accurately including actual Community and world levels of production.

  EC Budget
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what she expects the United Kingdom contribution to the EEC budget to be in each of the next five years on the basis of the decisions made at the EEC Council in Brussels; and if she will publish in the Official Report a table showing the estimated gross contribution under the four heads of (a) the rebate, (b) the amount paid directly for the benefit of farmers, (c) the amount paid indirectly for the benefit to farmers and (d) the amount paid for other purposes.

  The Prime Minister
  The overall effect of the agreement reached at the European Council will be to increase the United Kingdom's net contribution after abatement by an estimated £200 to £300 million a year compared with the existing own resources ceiling, and by an estimated £100 to £200 million a year compared with the effective level of spending in 1987. The outcome on individual budget lines will depend on a range of factors, including detailed decisions still to be taken.

  EC (Vegetable Oil and Oilseed)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what were(a) the EEC guaranteed thresholds and (b) actual output for vegetable oil and oil seeds over the past 10 years; what is the formula agreed by the EEC Council of Ministers for reducing output; what assessment has been made of its effect on production; and what assessment has been made of As expected effect on imports from (i) the developing countries and (ii) other countries;

  (2) what is the estimated cost of the new arrangements for agriculture agreed at the Brussels meeting of the EEC Council of Ministers for oil seeds in 1988 and for each succeeding year; what extra payments have been or will be made to Spain and Portugal in respect of agricultural production; what other payments will be made outside the agricultural chapter; what assessment has been made of the expected effect of the price regime on agricultural production; and if she will publish in the Official Report agricultural output figures for the EEC over the past 10 years.

  The Prime Minister
  The information requested on output is as follows for the three principal oil seeds. (Details of oil output are not readily available but vegetable oil content of rape seed, sunflower seed and soya beans is about 39 per cent. 40 per cent. and 17·5 per cent. respectively).

  Rapeseed

  Sunflowerseed

  Soya beans

  1978

  1,230

  125

  5

  1979

  1,205

  222

  22

  1980

  1,995

  307

  18

  1981

  1,999

  513

  21

  1982

  2,679

  746

  31

  1983

  2,492

  977

  89

  1984

  3,477

  1,200

  156

  1985

  3,729

  1,776

  343

  1986

  EC-10

  3,651

  2,262

  912

  EC-12

  3,665

  3,135

  918

  19871

  EC-10

  5,901

  2,780

  1,440

  EC-12

  5,911

  3,860

  1,447

  1 Estimated.

  Note: All figures are in '000 tonnes, and relate to EC-10 except where otherwise stated. Data are from EC Management Committee statistics.

  The maximum guarantee quantity systems for rape seed and sunflower seed were introduced in 1986 with EC-10 MGQs of 3·5 million tonnes and 1·7 million tonnes respectively, and with a 5 per cent. limit on price reductions. In 1987, this limit was increased to 10 per cent. and a similar system was introduced for soya beans with an EC-12 MGQ of 1·1 million tonnes.

  The European Council agreed that each 1 per cent. excess production of rape seed, sunflower seed or soya beans over respective MGQs of 4·5 (EC-10), 2·0 (EC-10) or 1·7 (EC-12) million tonnes would lead to a 0·45 per cent. price reduction in 1988–89, and to a 0·5 per cent. price reduction in 1989–90 and 1990–91, with no limit on the price reductions.

  No detailed assesment has been made of the effect on production or on imports of the new system the primary function of which is to stabilise expenditure. At current world prices and exchange rates full year expenditure relating to these three oil seed MGQs would be stabilised at about 2·6 becu compared to estimated 1987 full year expenditure of 3·5 becu.
  19
  For Spain and Portugal it was agreed that an adjustment would be made to the MGQs for rape seed (10,000 tonnes for Spain; 1,000 tonnes for Portugal) and sunflower seed (1·2 million tonnes for Spain; 53,500 tonnes for Portugal) corresponding to those agreed for the EC-10. No extra payments were agreed for Spain or Portugal on oil seeds either within or outside the agricultural part of the budget.

  Agricultural Expenditure
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will publish in the Official Report (a) details of the ceiling on agricultural spending in each of the next five years, (b) her estimate of the maximum amount of spending which would have been permitted if the arrangement agreed at Fontainebleau had been adhered to; and if she will make a statement on what will happen under the new formula when the ceiling is reached if there are outstanding liabilities.

  The Prime Minister
  The financial guidelines has been set at 27·5 becu — about £19 billion for 1988 and its annual rate of increase must not exceed 74 per cent. of the growth in Community gross national product. No estimates are available for the actual level of the guidelines after 1988. The guideline calculated under the previous arrangements would have been around 23 becu—about £16 billion—for 1988.

  Expenditure in excess of the guideline would be permitted within limits set by the European Council only in the event of a substantial in-year fall in the dollar/ecu exchange rate which had a budget effect of more than 400 mecu — about £280 million. There is no provision for other exceptional circumstances.

  Milk
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements were agreed for milk at the meeting of the EEC Council of Ministers in Brussels; what is her estimate of the increase in price to the United Kingdom consumer per gallon of milk as a result of the quota regime; what is the capital value of the United Kingdom quotas on the basis of the transactions known to have been carried out in 1987; and what is the highest recorded value in pounds sterling per cow in terms of a cow with (i) average milk yield and (ii) upper decile yield.

  The Prime Minister
  Final decisions on milk are subject to confirmation by the Foreign Affairs Council on 22–23 February; they are set out in document SN 461/88, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. It is impossible to isolate the effect of quotas on consumer prices, but as supplies for the liquid market remain adequate I would not expect it to be great. The information sought in the remainder of the hon. Gentleman's question is not available.

  Wheat
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister whether, in deciding the level of the co-responsibility levy, the EEC Council of Ministers took into account the fall in the cost of production of wheat; what assessment has been made on whether the levy will stop production from rising further; and if she will publish in the Official Report a table showing (a) the difference between the EEC price
  20
  and the world price of bread wheat and other wheat, (b) EEC production figures for wheat for each year since 1973 and (c) the cost of storing and financing surpluses.

  The Prime Minister
  The European Council took account of a wide range of factors in determining the level of the additional cereals co-responsibility levy. The additional levy, together with the reductions foreseen in intervention prices for cereals, will reduce the level of producers' returns and so restrain the production of cereals.

  The information requested is as follows:

  (a)

  £/tonne

  Bread wheat

  Other wheat

  World price1

  84–87

  62

  EC support2

  116

  110

  1 Quoted prices for premium milling wheat fob Canada and Australia and for lower quality wheat fob Argentina at 11 February 1988.

  2 Buying-in prices for February 1988.

  (b) EEC Common Wheat Production 1973–74–1986

  Million tonnes

  1973–74

  138·0

  1974–75

  141·5

  1975–76

  133·5

  1976–77

  135·3

  1977–78

  135·9

  1978–79

  143·6

  1979–80

  142·6

  1980–81

  148·0

  1981–82

  249·2

  1982–83

  255·7

  1983–84

  255·3

  1984–85

  270·2

  1985–86

  260·2

  1986–87

  365·0

  1 EC 9

  2 EC 10

  3 EC 12

  (c) The provisional cost of storing and financing intervention grain met by the Community budget in 1987 was 346 million ecu.

  Agricultural Surpluses
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister when was the outset to which she referred in her statement on the European Council (Brussels), 15 February,Official Report, column 705, and whether she will publish in the Official Report a list of the foodstuffs for which effective measures have now been agreed to reduce agricultural surpluses below the level which obtained in the year which preceded that time.

  The Prime Minister
  The outset to which I referred was the start of the future financing negotiations in early 1987. The package on which agreement was reached at the European Council in Brussels contains both general measures to reduce surpluses and specific stabiliser measures for cereals, oil seeds and protein crops. The agreement on stabilisers for other products — sugar, wine, fruit and vegetables, tobacco, milk, sheepmeat, olive oil and cotton — is to be confirmed by the Foreign Affairs Council on 22 and 23 February.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the expected cost of depreciating surplus stocks of agricultural products outside the agricultural guideline
  21
  under the terms agreed at the meeting of the EEC Council in Brussels; which departmental Vote will bear this and over what period of time; whether the same procedure will apply to new surpluses; and how these will be funded.

  The Prime Minister
  The expected cost of depreciating existing surplus stocks outside the financial guideline is 6,800 mecu—£4,750 million—spread over the years 1988 to 1992. This amount will be paid to member states from the Community budget in the normal way to reimburse them for the loss in value of stocks which they have purchased. In future new stocks will be systematically depreciated within the guideline to prevent a build-up of commitments.

  EC (Farming Expenditure)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what estimate she has of how much expenditure wholly or mainly for the benefit of farmers is to be carried in the future on the non-EC budget as a result of the decisions made at the meeting of the EC Council in Brussels; and what is her estimate of the amount so earned in 1987.

  The Prime Minister
  The European Council agreed to accept a new scheme for setting aside agricultural land with a sliding scale of Community contribution depending on the level of provision set by the member state. The cost of this scheme to member states will depend on the levels of premium and the uptake by farmers.

  President Waldheim (Wartime Record)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister if, in the light of her reply to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) of 16 February,Official Report, columns 521–22, she has anything to add to her answers of 23 October and 7 November 1986 to the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister when it is expected that the inquiry into the six wartime commandos who were executed by the Nazis will be reporting; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  A report will be made to the House when the review of the results of investigations carried out in 1986 by the Ministry of Defence into the fate of captured British service men is complete. I can give no precise dates.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if she now proposes to find out if there were documents being held in the United Kingdom regarding Dr. Waldheim's wartime activities prior to his being appointed Secretary-General of the United Nations.

  The Prime Minister
  The review into the results of the investigations carried out in 1986 by the Ministry of Defence into the fate of captured British service men will investigate this.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if the Yugoslav authorities have been asked if they can assist the inquiry being conducted into the position of the six wartime commandos interrogated by Lieutenant Waldheim between their capture and execution.

  The Prime Minister
  No. It is unlikely that the Yugoslav authorities would hold records relating to the activities of 22
  German Army Group E—Waldheim's unit—in relation to the treatment of captured British service men captured in the eastern Aegean in 1944.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if the Defence Ministry and the Foreign Office are now actively seeking documentation from the United States of America and any other Governments that would help to clarify the full position over what occurred at all stages to the six wartime commandos interrogated by Lieutenant Waldheim between their capture and death.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) on 19 February, at column 752.

  Wartime Commandos (Murders)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if, in the relevant correspondence between the Defence Ministry and the relatives of the six wartime commandos murdered by the Nazis, the relatives were given all the information that was due to them over what had occurred.

  The Prime Minister
  It was the policy to pass on to next-of-kin all reliable information. Where there was conflicting information it was the normal practice, if possible, to resolve the conflict before writing to avoid the distress that a wrong account could cause. The more painful details were omitted unless there was pressure from the next-of-kin for a detailed account of what happened.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many civil servants are employed in his Department; what are their average weekly working hours, and how many are(a) on flexitime, (b) on job-sharing schemes, (c) on a four-day working week or nine-day fornight and (d) able to retire with full pension rights at 60 years.

  Mr. Eggar
  The provision for staff employed at home and abroad by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, including the Overseas Development Administration, is 9,860.

  There is no set standard working week for diplomatic wing staff serving overseas. Aid wing staff serving overseas normally work 41 hours each week, but this may vary according to local practice. Conditioned hours for all staff in London are 41 hours gross week.

  In the diplomatic wing, flexible working hours were introduced in London during 1987 on a voluntary basis. Currently, staff in 21 Departments are operating the scheme. There are no staff operating job-sharing schemes.

  In the aid wing, 1,021 officers take advantage of flexible working hours and 26 staff operate job-sharing schemes.

  Neither wing has staff on a four-day working week or nine-day fortnight.

  With the exception of a few short-term contract staff, all staff in both wings participate in the principal Civil Service pension scheme and, as such, are entitled to full pension rights at 60 years.

  European Parliament
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how often the Council of Ministers has discussed the location of the seat of the European Parliament during the past 10 years.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The conclusions of the European Council in the Netherlands in March 1981 record that"the Heads of State and of Government decided unanimously to confirm the status quo in regard to the provisional places of work of the European institutions".

  There has been no other discussion.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimates the Council of Ministers has made of the cost of its failure to determine a single seat for the work of the European Parliament.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No such estimate has been made.

  Alexei Leim
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will raise with the Soviet Government the case of Alexei Leim, who wishes to join his sister in Israel.

  Mr. Mellor
  My right honourable and learned Friend last made representations to the Soviet authorities on behalf of divided Soviet families during his visit to the Soviet Union from 14 to 17 February. Yevgeny Leim, father of Alexei, was included on a list of refuseniks which was handed to the Soviet Foreign Minister at Brize Norton in December.

  El Salvador
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on death threats to British subjects in El Salvador.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have received no reports of death threats to British subjects in El Salvador.

  Turkey
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the European Economic Community's endorsement of the trade agreement with Turkey.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Additional protocols to the EC/Turkey association agreement, consequent on Spanish and Portuguese accession, were signed in July 1987. The Commission has recently initialled, on behalf of the Community, a voluntary restraint arrangement covering imports of textiles from Turkey.

  United Nation's Resolutions
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what circumstances resolutions passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations are not binding on member states.

  Mr. Eggar
  Generally the power of the General Assembly is limited to making recommendations. In certain specific cases, however, it is authorised by the United Nations charter to make decisions binding on the 24
  member states—for example, approval of the budget (under article 17) and admission of new members (under article 18).

  Mr. Hor Nam Hong
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why he has refused a visa to Hor Nam Hong, the Kampuchean ambassador to Moscow.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have no diplomatic relations nor official dealings with the PRK. Our normal policy is not to grant visas to PRK officials, although we consider every application on its merits. Hor Nam Hong is the PRK ambassador in Moscow and it would be inappropirate to issue a visa for him.

  Visas
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards consulting foreign Governments about applications for visas to enter the United Kingdom from representatives of states which Her Majesty's Government do not recognise.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is not our practice to consult Foreign Governments in the circumstances described.

  Dr. Kurt Waldheim
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if there has been any change of policy as to refusal of entry to the United Kingdom to Dr. Waldheim on the grounds that it would not be conducive to the public good for admission to be granted.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No.

  Islamabad
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations and complaints he has received about delays in completing explanatory statements at the British embassy at Islamabad.

  Mr. Eggar
  Representations about individual cases, from any source, are kept on the appropriate case file. No analytical record of the nature of such representations is maintained.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many extra staff have been sent in the last 12 months from the United Kingdom to the British embassy in Islamabad to tackle the backlog of explanatory statements; when such staff were sent; when he expects the backlog to be reduced; and what scale of backlog he regards as tolerable.

  Mr. Eggar
  I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 8 December 1987, at columns 115–16. In addition, during December 1987 three temporary additional entry clearance officers were sent to Islamabad in order to help clear the backlog by the start of the busy summer season. Future performance will be closely monitored in an effort to minimise future delays.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many explanatory statements, setting out the reasons for refusing entry
  25
  clearance to the United Kingdom, are awaiting completion at the British embassy in Islamabad and what has been (a) the shortest and (b) the longest backlog in completing such explanatory statements in each quarter in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Eggar
  The latest figures available relate to the end of November 1987. The number of outstanding explanatory statements was then:

  Number

  Settlement

  528

  Non-settlement

  613

  The relevant statistics have been kept since November 1986 only.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the average time taken in writing an explanatory statement at the United Kingdom's embassy at Islamabad; and what is the average time taken between completing and despatching explanatory statements from the post.

  Mr. Eggar
  An average writing time is not available. Each case is different. Once an explanatory statement has been completed, despatch is effected by diplomatic bag within a few days.

ENERGY

  Dungeness Nuclear Stations
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  'To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment his Department has made of the possible danger to the Dungeness A and B nuclear plants of the near collision of British Airways and Balkan Airways aircraft overhead on Saturday 5 February; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Merionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on 16 February 1988, at column 592.

  Nuclear Transport Ltd
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the percentage ownership by BNFL of Nuclear Transport Limited; what information he has as to what other partners have a stake in NTL and in what proportions; and what information he has as to the percentage ownership of NTL by Transnuklear GMBH of the Federal Republic of Germany.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I understand that the shares in Nuclear Transport Ltd are held equally by British Nuclear Fuels plc, Transnucleaire of France and Transnuklear GMBH of the Federal Republic of Germany.

  Energy Management Panels
  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet on 23 November 1987,Official Report, column 23, how often the energy management panels set up by Government Departments responsible for the civil estate have met; what is the total annual energy bill for which they are responsible; what capital investment budget has been set aside for energy efficiency improvements; and if he will report on progress in energy efficiency in Government buildings.
  26
  Mr. Parkinson
  The energy management panel for the civil estate has met twice since it was established last autumn. The total annual energy bill for the civil estate is about £60 million. The Property Services Agency is directing about £3·5 million in both 1987–88 and 1988–89 to capital improvements in energy efficiency. This is in addition to spending by individual Departments within their own works programmes and further energy efficiency improvements which arise from substantial planned maintenance expenditure by the PSA.

  The panel is monitoring developments across the estate and will advise Departments on how to build on the significant progress already achieved.

  Energy Forecasting
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list those research reports, conference papers and statements made by(a) his Department's officials, and (b) United Kingdom Atomic Energy Agency staff on energy forecasting, including any specific forecasts made for the United Kingdom over the past five years; and if he will place a copy of each in the Library.

  Mr. Parkinson
  A complete list of relevant research reports, conference papers and statements made by my Department's officials would cost a disproportionate amount to prepare. However, the most important papers on forecasting produced by the Department in recent years have been:

  (i) Proof of evidence for the Sizewell 'B' public inquiry DEN/P/1. October 1982.

  (ii) Department of Energy Paper on energy projections methodology DEN/S/7. 1983.

  (iii) Department of Energy Paper on investment in energy use, DEN/S/3. January 1983.

  (iv) Paper given to the SSRC conference on strategic planning in the nationalised industries by Dr. K. J. Wigley. September 1983.

  (v) Energy Efficiency Office paper on combined heat and power. 1986.

  (vi) Energy Technology Support Unit background papers relevant to the 1986 appraisal of United Kingdom energy research, development and demonstration.

  I understand that the UKAEA has not published any relevant reports, papers or statements during the period referred to.

  Nuclear Installations
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what changes are proposed for insurance cover and liability for nuclear installations operated by the Central Electricity Generating Board, South of Scotland Electricity Board and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, in the light of the forthcoming privatisation of the electricity supply industry; if he will set a working group to examine this issue; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  We will announce our proposals on the future structure of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales in due course. The South of Scotland Electricity Board is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Coal Production (Subsidies)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has as to the average level of Government subsidy per tonne of deep-mined coal each year since 1978 in each European Economic Community country and in the United States of America.
  27
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The information requested is set out below. It has been obtained from European Commission publications. The United States of America does not provide financial support to its coal industry.

  £ tonne

  Belgium

  France

  Federal Republic of Germany

  3Spain

  3Portugal

  19781

  27·70

  15·80

  11·91

  —

  —

  1979

  31·16

  16·56

  13·69

  —

  —

  1980

  27·75

  15·17

  12·19

  —

  —

  1981

  25·46

  11·95

  10·94

  —

  —

  1982

  16·47

  17·72

  8·65

  —

  —

  1983

  15·47

  19·19

  12·06

  —

  —

  1984

  20·09

  19·87

  12·30

  —

  —

  1985

  21·68

  22·00

  11·72

  —

  —

  1986

  34·90

  23·76

  21·25

  —

  —

  19874

  57·55

  22·16

  29·45

  12·08

  4·92

  United Kingdom2

  1978–79

  1·60

  1979–80

  2·30

  1980–81

  2·30

  1981–82

  3·28

  1982–83

  4·96

  1983–84

  12·71

  1984–85

  87·15

  1985–86

  6·37

  1986–87

  10·02

  1 It is not possible to make absolute comparisons between the figures from different member states as the numerical basis may vary.

  2 United Kingdom figures are on a financial year basis. The others are in calendar years.

  3 Spanish and Portuguese data are not available prior to 1987.

  4 1987 data are latest published estimates.

THE ARTS

  Inner Cities
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether the Arts Council has discussed with him initiatives to encourage the arts in the inner cities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) on 10 February 1988, at column 283.

  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Liverpool.

  Mr. Luce
  I have visited Liverpool twice in recent weeks. On 26 November I visited a wide range of arts facilities and on 16 February I participated in two television programmes on the arts. I am impressed by the range of performing arts and museum and gallery facilities in Liverpool.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil servants are employed in his Department; what are their average weekly working hours; and how 28
  many are (a) on flexitime, (b) on job-sharing schemes, (c) on a four-day working week or nine-day fortnight and (d) able to retire with full pension rights at 60 years.

  Mr. Brooke
  There were 3,164 staff in post in the Treasury on 1 February 1988, including 852 part-time staff—each counted as half a post. Full-time staff work conditioned hours. Information is not held centrally on the hours of staff working part-time, nor on the schemes under which they do so. Six hundred and thirty-three staff were on flexitime. Most full-time and part-time civil servants are currently members of the principal Civil Service pension scheme — the main exceptions are those who work less than 15 hours a week and casual staff—and are able to retire at 60 years with pension rights related to their final salary and their full length of service, which varies case by case, up to that age.

  Agricultural Support Costs
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what figures he based the claim, contained in the Economic Progress Report No. 194, February 1988, that agricultural support is costing the average European Economic Community family £550 per year; what the overall annual cost would be(a) in Britain and (b) in the European Economic Community as a whole, based on £550 per family of four; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Economic Progress Report article made it clear that the estimate of up to £550 a year in higher food prices together with higher levels of taxation was drawn from figures produced by the Australian Department of Primary Industry, published in the Political Economy of International Agricultural Policy Reform, Canberra 1986. The figure is broadly in line with the results of other studies. Figures for total costs borne by consumers and taxpayers in the United Kingdom or any other individual European Community country are not available. Whatever the difficulties of measurement, there are substantial costs to consumers and taxpayers. The Government's long-term strategy is to reduce these costs.

  Employees (Union Activities)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list, by union and Government Department, for 1976, 1986 and 1987,(a) the number of employees entitled to time off with pay for union activities, (b) the annual number of hours taken off and (c) the annual cost of employee's salaries for the hours when they are engaged in union activities,

  Mr. Brooke
  Details are not available for 1976, and are unavailable in the form requested for 1986 and 1987 except at disproportionate cost. However, I refer my hon. Friend to the replies I gave respectively to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) on 23 January 1987, at column 782, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) on 22 October 1987, at column 856.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the facilities provided for union officials in each Government Department, in order that they may undertake their union duties; and if he will give the estimated value of such facilities in each Department in respect of each union.
  29
  Mr. Brooke
  The facilities available for union officials are set out in the Civil Service National Whitley Council agreement on facilities for industrial relations duties and trade union activities in the non-industrial Civil Service. This was revised in 1982 and a copy is to be found in the Library of the House. The agreement is used as a model by many Departments in framing departmental agreements with their trade union sides. The precise value of these facilities provided by each Department to individual unions cannot be identified except at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied that facilities provided for union officials within Government Departments are used for their proper purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The facilities provided for union officials in Government Departments are covered by the national facilities agreement and departmental agreements and arrangements. It is the responsibility of individual Departments to ensure that facilities are used for their proper purposes.

  Brussels Summit
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update table 3.3 of the Public Expenditure White paper to take account of the decisions reached at the Brussels summit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 19 February 1988]: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has stated, the overall effect of the agreement reached at the European Council will be to increase the United Kingdom's net contribution after abatement by an estimated £200 to £300 million a year compared with the existing own resources ceiling, and by an estimated £100 to £200 million a year compared with the effective level of spending in 1987. The outcome on individual budget lines will depend on a range of factors, including detailed decisions still to be taken.

  Nurses' Pay
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for 1987 and 1979 at 1987 prices the average and minimum take-home pay after tax and national insurance payments of nurses who receive only the single person's tax allowance with no mortgage or other tax allowances for the following grades of nurse(a) student nurse, (b) nursing auxiliary, (c) enrolled nurse, (d) staff nurse and (e) sister II.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 15 February 1988]: I regret that information on average earnings is not available for 1979 and not in the form requested for 1987. Levels of take-home pay at constant 1987 prices for nurses at the minima of their pay scales and earning only basic pay are shown in the table.

  Take home pay at constant 1987 prices

  £ per annum

  1979

  1987

  Percentage increase

  Student nurse

  3,396

  3,790

  12·0

  Nursing auxiliary

  3,451

  3,813

  10·5

  30

  1979

  1987

  Percentage increase

  Enrolled nurse

  3,830

  4,996

  30·4

  Staff nurse

  4,161

  5,732

  37·7

  Sister II

  4,976

  6,925

  39·2

  Notes:

  For 1979 gross pay is at 1 June. For 1987 gross pay is current level payable from 1 April 1987.

  Take home pay is gross pay less income tax, assuming only a single person's allowance, and contracted out NICs.

  The 1979 income tax regime used is that in the "caretaker" Budget of May 1979.

  Constant prices calculated using RPI for July of the relevant year.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Clothing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total output of clothing, the percentage exported and the proportion of the domestic market taken by imports in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) West Germany and (c) Japan in 1958, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975 and in each year from 1979 to 1987.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The available information is as follows:

  Clothing (ISIC major group 322) Sales

  United Kingdom

  Federal Republic of Germany

  Japan

  US $ million

  US $ million

  US $ million

  1970

  2,410

  3,017

  2,294

  1975

  3,812

  5,530

  6,117

  1979

  6,309

  7,836

  10,780

  1980

  6,839

  8,003

  10,583

  1981

  5,742

  6,125

  11,459

  1982

  5,089

  5,415

  10,167

  1983

  4,616

  5,193

  10,834

  1984

  4,442

  4,801

  11,065

  1985

  4,873

  4,736

  13,682

  Export ratio

  United Kingdom

  Federal Republic of Germany

  Japan

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  1970

  11·6

  13·8

  19·6

  1975

  14·8

  20·2

  5·2

  1979

  24·9

  34·0

  3·2

  1980

  27·0

  37·4

  4·6

  1981

  28·3

  42·4

  4·9

  1982

  28·3

  47·8

  5·2

  1983

  27·8

  50·5

  5·8

  1984

  29·6

  56·1

  6·7

  1985

  30·5

  62·3

  5·1

  Import penetration

  United Kingdom

  Federal Republic of Germany

  Japan

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  1970

  12·5

  27·8

  4·4

  1975

  25·6

  44·9

  8·3

  1979

  35·3

  59·8

  15·4

  1980

  37·0

  63·7

  13·8

  1981

  42·0

  67·9

  15·3

  1982

  42·2

  70·9

  17·2

  31

  United Kingdom

  Federal Republic of Germany

  Japan

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  1983

  42·2

  72·8

  14·0

  1984

  46·3

  77·1

  17·6

  1985

  44·3

  79·8

  14·3

  Notes:

  1. Information for 1958, 1960, 1965, 1986 and 1987 is not available on a comparable basis.

  Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

  3. Industry Classification: International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC).

  Footwear
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total output of footwear, the percentage exported, and the proportion of the domestic market taken by imports in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) West Germany and (c) Japan in 1958, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975, and in each year from 1979 to 1987.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The available information is as follows:

  Footwear (ISIC Major Group 324)

  Sales (US $ million)

  United Kingdom

  Federal Republic of Germany

  Japan

  1970

  486

  824

  358

  1975

  722

  1,120

  896

  1979

  1,209

  1,949

  2,023

  1980

  1,344

  2,076

  2,005

  1981

  1,294

  1,599

  2,077

  1982

  1,189

  1,522

  1,826

  1983

  1,065

  1,417

  1,863

  1984

  1,205

  1,356

  1,908

  1985

  1,076

  1,297

  2,418

  Export Ratio (per cent.)

  United Kingdom

  Federal Republic of Germany

  Japan

  1970

  15·9

  10·4

  13·1

  1975

  14·3

  15·8

  3·0

  1979

  18·9

  21·3

  1·5

  1980

  21·6

  23·2

  2·0

  1981

  17·1

  25·0

  2·1

  1982

  15·7

  27·0

  2·7

  1983

  16·1

  31·0

  2·3

  1984

  14·7

  32·3

  2·4

  1985

  17·6

  40·8

  1·7

  Import Penetration (per cent.)

  United Kingdom

  Federal Republic of Germany

  Japan

  1970

  15·6

  23·8

  2·4

  1975

  25·8

  43·3

  6·3

  1979

  39·9

  53·1

  9·8

  1980

  40·0

  56·0

  10·1

  1981

  40·2

  56·0

  10·4

  1982

  40·8

  57·3

  11·6

  1983

  44·5

  61·1

  11·2

  1984

  42·6

  63·3

  13·4

  1985

  46·7

  68·2

  10·6

  Textiles
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total output of textiles by value, the percentage exported and the proportion of the domestic market taken by imports in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) West Germany and (c) Japan in 1985, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975 and in each year from 1979 to 1987.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The available information is as follows:

  Textiles (ISIC Major Group 321) Sales (US $ million)

  United Kingdom

  Federal Republic of Germany

  Japan

  1970

  6,200

  7,458

  10,960

  1975

  8,570

  12,356

  19,232

  1979

  12,894

  18,222

  32,302

  1980

  12,556

  18,857

  32,305

  1981

  10,279

  14,740

  32,592

  1982

  9,062

  13,731

  29,693

  1983

  8,309

  13,303

  31,318

  1984

  8,062

  12,729

  31,693

  1985

  8,270

  12,295

  33,634

  Export Ratio (Per Cent.)

  United Kingdom

  Federal Republic of Germany

  Japan

  1970

  17·5

  21·1

  16·7

  1975

  20·3

  27·3

  15·8

  1979

  24·4

  34·1

  12·7

  1980

  17·7

  343

  16·3

  1981

  25·8

  39·0

  18·5

  1982

  25·9

  41·2

  17·7

  1983

  26·4

  41·7

  17·5

  1984

  28·0

  45·4

  17·4

  1985

  30·2

  50·5

  15·1

  Import Penetration (Per Cent.)

  United Kingdom

  Federal of Germany

  Japan

  1970

  12·6

  21·4

  4·1

  1975

  19·9

  28·1

  6·1

  1979

  28·5

  36·6

  8·7

  1980

  29·7

  37·6

  7·6

  1981

  33·3

  39·4

  7·5

  1982

  34·9

  40·0

  8·5

  1983

  38·0

  41·4

  7·3

  1984

  40·2

  43·8

  9·1

  1985

  42·0

  47·7

  8·2

  Notes:

  1. Information for 1958, 1960, 1965, 1986 and 1987 is not available on a comparable basis.

  2. Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

  3. Industry Classification: International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC).

  Portugal
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what estimates he has made of the effect of the industrial modernisation of Portugal on the United Kingdom balance of trade with Portugal; and if he will publish in the Official Report details of the overall balance with Portugal in each of the past 15 years and the balance of trade in manufactures.
  33
  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) on 12 February, at column 375. The many factors contributing to the changes in these balances have not been quantified.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many civil servants are employed in his Department; what are their average weekly working hours; and how many are(a) on flexitime, (b) on job-sharing schemes, (c) on a four-day working week or nine-day fortnight and (d) able to retire with full pension rights at 60 years.

  Mr. Butcher
  There were 12,763 permanent civil servants employed in the Department of Trade and Industry on 1 January 1988. The average paid working hours, including lunch breaks and overtime, of the 12,259 full-time staff is 42·0. The extent of unpaid overtime working is not known. The 504 part-time staff work, on average, 21·4 hours per week, excluding lunch breaks.

  Flexible working hours is a facility open to all staff in the Department. It is authorised locally by line management and there is no record kept centrally. The number of those actually working FWH could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Some of the part-time staff share full-time jobs, but details are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Thirty-one of the part-time staff work between 29 and 33 hours per week, excluding lunch breaks, that is, broadly the equivalent of a four-day working week or a nine-day fortnight.

  Maximum pension entitlement is earned after 40 years of reckonable service. Statistics are not readily available of the number of staff who, assuming service continued to normal retirement age, would reach maximum entitlement.

  Engagements
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will list the public engagements or meetings with persons outside the Government or the Civil Service which he has held in his capacity as Minister responsible for the inner cities since 13 January.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have had many meetings with business men and organisations involved in inner city regeneration including Business in the Community, the CBI and the Industrial Society. These meetings have shown that there is a range of ways in which companies, voluntary organisations and local communities can contribute constructively to making inner cities better places in which to live, work and invest.

  Commercial Barriers (Removal)
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what provisions will be made to draw the attention of the public to the new conditions creating new opportunities within the European Economic Community after 1992, as a result of the proposed removal of commercial barriers in Europe.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  We are preparing a sustained national campaign so that everyone involved in business in this 34
  country knows about opportunities which will come from completing the single European market. Full details will be announced shortly.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Vaccination
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services by what percentage the uptake of(a) measles, (b) triple vaccine, including whooping cough, and (c) poliomyelitis vaccination falls short of the target level of 90 per cent. in each of the health authorities in England for each of the last six years.

  Mrs. Currie
  I have placed in the Library tables showing the available differences between the two year uptake rates and the 90 per cent. targets in 1984, 1985 and 1986. Due to NHS restructuring in 1982, comparable figures are not available for the years before 1984.

  AIDS
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what evidence he has of a change of behaviour patterns following his Department's AIDS advertising campaign; and if he has any plans to improve the response to his Department's campaign.

  Mr. Newton
  In mounting the AIDS public education campaign the Government, and now the Health Education Authority, have adopted a step-by-step approach, with detailed monitoring and evaluation at each stage. The first stages of the campaign aimed to raise the general level of public awareness about AIDS and HIV and to provide basic factual information about the disease. The second phase of the campaign was aimed specifically at combating the spread of HIV through injecting drug misuse, with a parallel campaign aimed at discouraging young people from experimenting with drugs at all. The latest stage of the campaign was launched on 17 February by the Health Education Authority, which is now responsible for the United Kingdom-wide mass media elements of AIDS public education, working in close collaboration with sister agencies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The new campaign seeks to build on progress already made by reinforcing, among the population as a whole, knowledge of the disease and awareness of safeguarding actions which the individual can take, and by targeting specific groups who may be at particular risk, starting with business travellers.

  Independent market research in the first year of the campaign revealed a very high level of awareness which was a particular objective of this phase. There was some evidence of a wider use of condoms. The research has also indicated that many homosexual men claim to have made changes in their sexual behaviour; this is supported by indirect evidence that they may have done so.

  Evaluation of the second phase of the campaign is being carried out and the results are awaited. The Government and the Health Education Authority will continue to monitor closely the effects of the campaigns already undertaken and now underway and to use the results in developing policy on AIDS work in general and on campaign activity in particular.
  35
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the average cost to the National Health Service of treating an AIDS patient for the duration of the illness.

  Mr. Newton
  There is no detailed information available about the total cost to the NHS of treating a patient with AIDS. From research, hospital costs of in-patient treatment are estimated at £17,600 from diagnosis to death. In addition, the average cost of maintaining a patient on Retrovir (AZT) is £4,600 per year.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the expenditure of the National Health Service for 1960,1970, 1980, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987; and what percentage of the gross domestic product these expenditures represented.

  Mr. Newton
  Data on net NHS expenditure, excluding NHS charges, for readily available years are shown in the table. The data have been derived from Central Statistical Office national accounts.

  Net expenditure of the National Health Service in total and as a percentage of GDP

  Net expenditure £ million

  Percentage of GDP

  1970

  2,031

  3·9

  1980

  11,939

  5·2

  Staff reporting to each

  Title and responsibilities

  Grade 3

  Grade 4

  Grade 5

  Grade 6

  Grade 7

  Executive grades

  Clerical and other

  Total

  Principal establishments and finance officer

  Establishments and personnel

  6

  2

  26·0

  20·0

  140·5

  868·5

  880·0

  1,943·0

  Central management support

  Departmental finance

  Economic advice

  Operation research

  Statistics and research

  Director of Social Security operations

  Operations in:

  3

  —

  19·0

  67·0

  490·0

  27,899·0

  63,010·0

  91,488·0

  —The Social security regional organisation

  —Newcastle central office

  —North Fylde central office

  Social security computing

  Deputy secretary: Social security policy

  Social security policy

  4

  —

  12·0

  2·0

  45·0

  207·0

  52·0

  322·0

  Deputy secretary: Family practitioner services and medicines policy

  Family practitioner services

  4

  —

  12·0

  12·0

  55·5

  183·0

  154·0

  420·5

  Policy relating to medicines

  Deputy secretary: Health and personal social services policy

  Policy relating to:

  6

  —

  17·0

  2·5

  50·0

  198·0

  128·5

  402·0

  —Health issues

  —Primary care

  —Community services

  —Hospitals

  —Mental, maternity and child health

  —Child care

  Director of operations: NHS management board

  Liaison with health authority on policy accountability and planning

  4

  1

  13·0

  20·0

  77·5

  217·5

  82·0

  415·0

  36

  Net expenditure £ million

  Percentage of GDP

  1982

  14,448

  5·2

  1983

  16,307

  5·4

  1984

  17,163

  5·4

  1985

  18,327

  5·2

  1986

  19,939

  5·3

  Notes:

  (a) Before April 1 1974 local authorities incurred both capital and current expenditure on the National Health Service. The table contains all readily identifiable elements of such expenditure.

  (b) Data beyond 1986 are not available.

  (c) There are slight rounding differences between these figures and those published by the OECD for purposes of international comparisons.

  Departmental Deputy Secretaries
  Mr. Tom Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the responsibilities of each of the deputy secretaries in his Department and the numbers and ranks of staff reporting to each.

  Mr. Portillo
  The responsibilities of grade 2—deputy secretary level — officers in the Department and the number and grades of staff reporting to them are given in the table. In addition, approximately 4,500 staff work in the special hospitals, Disablement Services Authority, youth treatment centres, artificial eye unit and Medical Practices Committee, and a further 1,500 staff, mainly working for the independent statutory authorities, do not report through lines of command to grade 2 officers.
  37

  Staff reporting to each

  Title and responsibilities

  Grade 3

  Grade 4

  Grade 5

  Grade 6

  Grade 7

  Executive grades

  Clerical and other

  Total

  NHS buildings

  Director of personnel: NHS management board

  NHS personnel

  1

  —

  4·0

  1·0

  15·0

  58·5

  31·0

  110·5

  1Director of finance: NHS management board

  Health authority financial management and control

  1

  —

  1·0

  1·0

  4·0

  26·0

  8·0

  41·0

  Management consultancy services for the NHS

  1Director of planning information and technology: NHS management board

  Planning and information technology

  —

  —

  3·0

  1·0

  10·0

  39·5

  15·0

  68·5

  Solicitor

  Legal aspects of health and social security

  2

  1

  11·0

  20·0

  25·0

  30·0

  54·0

  143·0

  Chief inspector of social services

  Inspection of social work and some aspects of social service

  —

  2

  14·0

  —

  80·0

  7·0

  24·5

  127·5

  Deputy chief medical officer

  Health issues related to:

  4

  7

  31·5

  42·0

  8·0

  15·0

  35·5

  143·0

  —Children, disablement, prevention and nutrition

  —Primary care

  —Toxicology and the environment

  —Mental health

  Deputy chief medical officer

  Health issues related to:

  3

  —

  13·5

  3·0

  3·0

  10·5

  21·0

  54·0

  —Hospital policies and service

  —Management, planning and community medicine

  —Medical manpower

  Deputy chief medical officer

  Health issues related to:

  2

  6

  33·0

  5·5

  5·0

  21·0

  35·0

  107·5

  —Medicines

  —International health

  —Scientific services, equipment and buildings and supplies

  —Cancer

  1Senior consultants and advisers: Grade 2 status.

  Wound Dressings
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what estimate he has made of the net cost of introducing, on prescription, those high technology wound dressings which have recently been submitted to the drugs committee of his Department.

  Mr. Newton
  Several new wound dressings are currently being evaluated. No estimates are yet available of the effect on overall NHS expenditure of making these dressings available on GP prescription.

  Health Care
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage of Britain's gross domestic product was devoted to both public and private health care in each year from 1958 to 1988.
  38
  Mr. Newton
  Data on net public expenditure, excluding NHS charges, and private expenditure as a percentage of GDP for the period 1965 to 1986 are shown in the table. They have been derived from Central Statistical Office national accounts and relate to the United Kingdom as a whole. Complete data on a consistent basis are not available for earlier years.

  Net public expenditure and private expenditure as a percentage of GDP

  Net public expenditure

  Private expenditure

  1965

  3·6

  0·6

  1966

  3·7

  0·5

  1967

  3·9

  0·5

  1968

  3·9

  0·6

  1969

  3·8

  0·6

  1970

  3·9

  0·6

  1971

  3·9

  0·6

  1972

  4·2

  0·6

  39

  Net public expenditure

  Private expenditure

  1973

  4·1

  0·6

  1974

  4·7

  0·6

  1975

  5·0

  0·5

  1976

  4·9

  0·5

  1977

  4·8

  0·5

  1978

  4·7

  0·5

  1979

  4·7

  0·5

  1980

  5·2

  0·6

  1981

  5·4

  0·6

  1982

  5·2

  0·7

  1983

  5·4

  0·7

  1984

  5·4

  0·8

  1985

  5·2

  0·8

  1986

  5·3

  0·8

  Notes:

  (a) Before April 1 1974 local authorities incurred both capital and current expenditure on the National Health Service. The table contains all readily identifiable elements of such expenditure.

  (b) Data beyond 1986 are not available.

  (c) There are slight rounding differences between these figures and those published by the OECD for purposes of international comparisons.

  National Health Service Consultants
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has as to the different frequencies and the number of times individual consultants see National Health Service patients in respect of the 10 most common hospital treatments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  This information is not collected centrally. How often, and how many times, an individual patient is seen by the consultant is a matter for the latter to decide in the light of his clinical assessment of that patient's condition.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many overseas students resident in the United Kingdom for over 26 weeks are claiming child benefit on behalf of their children also resident in the United Kingdom; how many children are concerned; and what is the cost to public funds.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Abortions
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the number of mentions of mental retardation in the mother on the notification forms for abortions carried out at or after 18 weeks gestation during 1986.

  Mr. Newton
  During 1986 there was one abortion notification which mentioned mental retardation in the mother, where the abortion was performed at 18 weeks or more gestation.

  Donor Organs
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when his Department first considered the significance of required request as a method of increasing 40
  the number of donor organs; what studies have taken place on this matter; when a decision can be expected; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have followed with interest the American experience of required request legislation, which began in 1985. In May 1986 the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health visited New York to examine the operation of the laws. More recently the working party on the supply of donor organs set up by the medical royal colleges considered the introduction of legislation. They recommended an alternative non-legislative approach towards improving the availability of donor organs. I announced our decisions on the recommendations in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) on 18 December 1987, at column 934.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what studies have been made relating to contracting in or contracting-out of any scheme to increase the supply of donor organs for transplant; and if he is now in a position to make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Successive Governments have considered and rejected contracting out schemes under which organs could be removed after death from anyone who had not registered an objection. Current legislation, as set out in the Human Tissue Act 1961, regards organ donation as a positive gift made by the donor during life or by surviving relatives after the donor's death. We have no plans to amend the Act.

  Proposals for national contracting-in schemes are usually associated with computerised registers of potential donors. We are being kept informed of the progress of Lifeline Wales, a computerised register of potential donors with links to intensive care and neuro units in Wales. A national register covering England would be expensive to establish and maintain, and we would only consider making the necessary investment if the Welsh experience showed it to be clearly effective.

  Prosthetists
  Mr Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what assessment he has made of the needs for additional prosthetists; what support and advice his Department is giving about the need for additional prosthetists and the retraining of prosthetists; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  These are matters for the Disablement Services Authority to which the hon. Member should address his questions.

  Drug Testing
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will give details of the drug testing scheme results for European Economic Community-manufactured general drugs in the latest year for which figures are available;

  (2) if he will give details of the drug testing scheme results for the European Economic Community-manufactured and non-European Economic Community-manufactured proprietary drugs for the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that no information is available about the country of origin of the drugs tested under the
  41
  scheme for testing drugs dispensed by Community pharmacies. The information available for England in the period 1 April 1986 to 31 March 1987 is as follows:

  Number of samples tested

  Proprietary

  Non-proprietary

  Total:

  1,875

  2,598

  (i) No action taken

  1,843

  2,560

  (ii) Faults and deficiencies in manufacture of proprietary products or faults and deficiencies which cannot be checked by independent analysts

  8

  9

  (iii) Minor error in dispensing

  9

  7

  (iv) Referred to pharmaceutical service committee

  15

  22

  Drug Recalls
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will give details of the drug recalls of European Economic Community-manufactured and non-European Economic Community-manufactured general drugs for the latest year for which figures are available;

  (2) if he will give details of the drug recalls of European Economic Community-manufactured and non-European Economic Community-manufactured proprietary drugs for the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret information is not available in the form requested. Generally, pharmaceutical companies have their own arrangements for recalling batches of defective medicines which they identify. During 1987 they involved the Department in the recall of specific batches of nine generic and five proprietary products, all manufactured in the European Community. We are not aware of any recalls in 1987 involving non-EC manufactured products.

  Prostoglandin Abortions
  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the other agents used in some prostoglandin abortions; and how many prostoglandin abortions were performed in England and Wales in 1986(a) with and (b) without the use of other agents, respectively.

  Mr. Newton
  Doctors are asked to specify the other agents used in prostoglandin abortions on the notification form which must be submitted to the chief medical officer for every abortion performed. An analysis of this information could be provided, only at disproportionate cost, but I understand that the agents normally used are oxytocin and urea. The numbers of prostoglandin abortions in England and Wales in 1986 are as follows:

  Number

  Prostoglandins only

  3,616

  Prostoglandins with other agents

  5,570

  Pay Beds
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if, in the light of the answer of 12 February 1988,Official Report, columns 409–10, giving the number of pay beds in England at 31 December 1979 as 3,171, he has
  42
  anything to add to the answer of 19 December 1986, Official Report, column 795, which gave a figure of 2,404; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that the figure of 3,171 authorised pay beds given in my reply to the hon. Member on 12 February 1988, at columns 409–10, was incorrect. The number of authorised pay beds in England at 31 December 1979 was 2,405. The percentage bed occupancy figure thus increases to 62·7 per cent.

  Eli Lilley
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the drugs supplied to the National Health Service by Eli Lilley.

  Mr. Newton
  The following drugs are supplied by either this company or its subsidiary, Dista Products Ltd.:

  Allegron

  Amytal

  Aventyl

  Brietal Sodium

  Capastat

  Cinobac

  Dimelor

  Distaclor

  Distaquaine V-K

  Fenopron

  Haelan (excluding Haelan Tape)

  Ilosone

  Ilotycin

  Humulin 1

  Humulin Lente

  Humulin M1/2/3/4

  Humulin Z

  Humulin Zn

  Keflex

  Keflin

  Kefzol

  Nebcin

  Nu-Seals

  Progesic

  Seconal Sodium

  Sodium Amytal

  Tuinal

  V-Cil-k.

  The following products are also supplied, but prescriptions must be written in the generic name arid pharmacists are free to dispense a generic product which need not necessarily be this company's.

  Distalgesic

  Cologel

  Doloxene.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the cost to his Department of employing management consultants for each year from 1983 to 1987.

  Mr. Moore
  The Department's expenditure on consultants is recorded in budget years from April to March. It is not possible to isolate expenditure on management consultants alone as there is considerable overlap with computer consultancies. The expenditure on management and computer consultancies for 1983–84, 1984–85, 1985–86, 1986–87 and the estimated expenditure for 1987–88 are as follows:

  £ million

  1983–84

  3·623

  1984–85

  7·600

  43

  £ million

  1985–86

  13·646

  1986–87

  16·962

  1987–88

  125·827

  1 Estimated

  Social Security Tribunals
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement on the current waiting period for social security appeals to be heard by tribunals in the Nottingham region; what is the current number of appeals awaiting determination; and what steps are being taken to reduce the backlog.

  Mr. Portillo
  The latest available administrative statistics for the midlands region of the office of the president of social security appeal tribunals, which covers the Nottingham area, are for the second quarter of 1987. At June 1987 there were 27,398 appeals awaiting a hearing and the average time from lodgment of an appeal to the hearing in that quarter was 21·2 weeks. The president advises that in the midlands region at 12 January 1988 there were 17,301 appeals awaiting a hearing.

  Responsibility for the administration of social security appeal tribunals rests with the president, his hon. Judge Byrt, QC. In response to a request from officials earlier this month, he has written a note to describe the difficulties which his organisation faces and his proposals for resolving them. Copies of that letter have been placed in the Library.

  Worth House Children's Home
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list, by name and function, all those persons of whom the social services inspectorate made inquiries during his investigations concerning the operation and administration of Worth house children's home, Herne Bay.

  Mrs. Currie
  The inspection of Worth house children's home was a joint one with Kent county council social services department. The inspectors spoke to individuals and groups of staff and shared meals and recreation periods with the young residents; the premises were inspected and records were examined. It is not normal practice to reveal the names of individuals of whom inquiries are made in the course of inspections by the social services inspectorate.

  Registration of Death (Travel Costs)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the total cost in each of the last five years to assist claimants with the cost of travel to register a death; and if such claims for assistance will be accepted after April of the current year.

  Mr. Portillo
  No specific provision exists in the supplementary benefit scheme to help with the cost of travel to register a death. However, provision did exist in supplementary benefit single payments to help claimants to meet the cost of travelling to arrange a funeral. Such help continues to be available under the social fund funeral payment arrangements which replaced the single payments provision in April 1987.
  44
  Details of the amounts of such payments are not available.

  Death Grant
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people in the United Kingdom died in each of the last five years; and in how many deaths the death grant was paid.

  Mr. Portillo
  The available information is as follows. Deaths recorded in the United Kingdom include a minority of visitors from abroad who did not qualify for a death grant.

  United Kingdom

  Year

  Deaths recorded

  Death grants paid1

  1983

  659,101

  614,000

  1984

  644,918

  213,723

  1985

  670,656

  615,000

  1986

  660,735

  3

  1987

  4

  3

  1 Figures are rounded to nearest 1,000.

  2 Figure shown is for Northern Ireland only; figures for Great Britain not available due to industrial action.

  3 Data not collected.

  4 Not yet available.

  Sources:

  Central Statistical Office Annual Abstract of Statistics 1988.

  Social Security Statistics 1987.

  Northern Ireland Social Security Statistics 1986.

  Birmingham Children's Hospital
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many private heart operations requiring intensive care beds at the Birmingham children's hospital were carried out by consultants from the Birmingham children's hospital during the week beginning 14 February; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  I understand that one heart operation was performed on a private patient at the Birmingham children's hospital last week. There is a long-standing arrangement at the children's hospital whereby any private patients are admitted to the hospital on the basis of clinical need and do not take priority over National Health Service patients.

  Registration of Deaths
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will introduce legislation to enable funeral directors to register deaths on behalf of the bereaved to remove the requirement on the bereaved to register a death at the registrar's office for the area where the death occurred.

  Mrs. Currie
  At present, information for the registration of a death may only be given to the registrar of the sub-district in which the event occurred.

  A change to enable a death in England and Wales to be notified to any registrar of deaths in those countries was recently recommended for consideration in the efficiency scrutiny into the registration service which reported in 1985. Following my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State's announcement in the other place on 3 December 1987—Official Report, House of

  45
  Lords, column 1230—consultations have been opened on the scrutiny recommendations and on wider issues including the list of persons qualified to register deaths. It is as yet too early to predict the outcome of those consultations.

  Drugs (Adverse Reactions)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate the number of people who suffer significant long-term adverse reactions after taking pharmaceutical drugs; and approximately what percentage this is of those taking drugs each year.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 12 January 1988]: Although it is not possible to provide reliable estimates of the number who suffer significant long term adverse reactions after taking pharmaceutical drugs or of the percentage that the latter represents of all who take such drugs in a year, it is clear that the percentage must be extremely small. The number of suspected adverse reaction reports received by the Committee on Safety of Medicines

  Estimated amount of weekly National Insurance contributions paid to the National Health Service (average male earnings)

  Weekly earnings

  Total NIC

  NHS contributions (0·95 per cent. of earnings)

  Percentage of NIC paid to NHS

  £

  £

  £

  Not contracted out of SERPS

  225·00

  20·25

  2·14

  10·6

  Contracted out of SERPS

  225·00

  16·57

  2·14

  12·9

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the figures for National Health Service expenditure per annum on(a) hospital running costs, (b) hospital capital costs, (c) general practice medical services, (d) general practice dental services, (e) general practice pharmaceutical services and (f) general practice ophthalmic services for 1979 until the last year the figures are available.

  Mr. Newton
  Information for 1986–87 is shown in the table.

  For the earlier years I refer the hon. Member to the summarised accounts of health authorities and family practitioner committees in England which are published annually as a House of Commons paper. HC20 1986–87 covers the financial year 1985–86—the latest published.

  £'000

  Hospital Services—Revenue Expenditure

  8,255,383

  Hospitals—Capital Expenditure

  706,563

  General Medical Services

  1,134,612

  Pharmaceutical Services

  1,696,073

  General Dental Services

  530,550

  General Ophthalmic Services

  130,725

  Continence Nursing Advisers
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what progress has been made in providing additional continence nursing advisers; what
  46
  in 1986 was 15,527 of which 5,006 were judged serious. Of the latter, the duration of the reaction was known for 2,039 and of these only 144 exceeded three months. There is no reliable estimate of the number of people who take drugs for a medicinal purpose in a year although it must represent a significant proportion of the population if both prescription and non-prescription drugs are included.

  National Insurance
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of the national insurance contributions paid by a man on the national average wage goes to support the National Health Service.

  Mr. Newton
  In 1988–89 a man is expected to earn an average £225 per week: the NHS contribution from class 1 national insurance contributions will be 0·95 per cent. of earnings up to the upper earnings limit of £305 per week, and 0·8 per cent. of earnings from employers. The NHS contribution will fund 15 per cent. of the gross cost of the NHS in Great Britain in 1988–89. The table provides the information sought.

  support his Department is giving to providing training for such advisers; if he will increase training facilities; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what official training facilities are available for nursing continence advisers; what support his Department is giving for validating such training and qualifications; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will consider giving nursing continence advisers special payments for training, skills and responsibilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting as the independent statutory body charged with the responsibility for the regulation and education of the nursing professions in England provides a curriculum for a course on the promotion of continence and the management of incontinence. It is for health authorities to determine the appropriate levels of training required for particular posts. The Nurses' Pay Review Body is currently considering appropriate rates of pay for a new clinical grading structure which will provide more scope to reward and recognise nurses who have advanced clinical skills.

  Intramuscular Injections
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether his Department regards the administration of intramuscular injections by trained nurses as part of a nurse's ordinary duties; and what instructions his Department gives to hospital administrators if nursing officers insist that it is not.
  47
  Mr. Newton
  The administration of intramuscular injections is part of the duties of a trained nurse and this skill is taught as part of basic training. This is not a subject on which the Department would normally give advice. Any disagreement would be a matter for local management to resolve.

  Blood Samples
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether his Department regards the taking of blood samples by appropriately trained nurses as part of a nurse's ordinary duties; and what instructions his Department gives to hospital administrators if nursing officers insist that it is not.

  Mr. Newton
  This particular task is not included in basic training but it has been accepted by a number of health authorities as being a suitable task to be delegated to appropriately trained nursing staff. Advice is given on delegation to a nurse of tasks not included in basic training in HC(77)22, "The Extended Role of the Clinical Nurse Legal Implications & Training Requirements". A copy is being placed in the Library.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Sea Birds (Carbis Bay)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the destruction of sea birds in Carbis bay, Cornwall, through entanglement in nylon monofilament fishing nets; if he will take steps to ban the use of these nets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have received representations from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds about the recent deaths of sea birds in Carbis bay, Cornwall, through entanglement in fishing nets. Under normal circumstances the use of monofilament nets does not present a significant threat to populations of sea birds. However, in recent weeks, the adverse weather has driven sea birds inshore and prevented local fishermen from setting their nets further out to sea. Additionally, there has been a particular abundance of small fish, notably sprat, in the area. These factors, taken together, have resulted in unusually high fatalities among sea birds. We are keeping the situation under review.

  Food for Needy People
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements are being made for the distribution of free food for the needy, in the current year.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on 9 February, at column 158, to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay).

  Chile
  Sir Hugh Rossi
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment was made by the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), the implications of the degree of economic stability of Chile for the prospects of trade between the United Kingdom and Chile; and if he will make a statement.
  48
  Mr. Gummer
  On my visit to Chile between 11 and 17 January 1988, I was accompanied by a team of business men representing a good cross-section of the United Kingdom's agro-industry. I can inform my hon. Friend that the team, who made a significant number of new business contacts, were highly impressed by the economic stability of that country and the prospects for bilateral trade in agricultural and fisheries products. I share that impression.

  As I made clear to the various Ministers of the Chilean Government whom I met, I am a firm supporter of the initiative they have taken to privatise the agricultural sector. I was able, with my business team, to meet many agricultural entrepreneurs, particularly in the horticultural and fisheries sectors, who have expressed the wish to improve trade with the United Kingdom.

  Nevertheless I also made it clear to representatives of the Chilean Government, as well as to the leading members of the Opposition, that, while admiring their economic progress, we could not overlook Chile's consistently poor human rights performance. I also emphasised that Her Majesty's Government would wish to see an orderly and peaceful return to democracy as soon as possible.

  Water (Nitrate Levels)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further action his Department is taking to restrict nitrate levels in water; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  My Department has well-established programmes of research, publicity and advice aimed at encouraging the farming industry to adopt practices which limit the scope for nitrate leaching into water resources. In addition, we have recently launched a campaign in association with other interested organisations to raise awareness among farmers of how they can help to reduce the problem, particularly in areas where the levels of nitrate in the public water supply are significant.

  EC (Food Statistics)
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North of 22 July 1987,Official Report, column 236, if he will update the details of (a) the total agricultural support for the European Economic Community, (b) overall European Economic Community expenditure and (c) total European Economic Community agricultural exports, to the latest date for which information is now available.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Final outturn figures for 1987 are not yet available. Budget provision for expenditure on market support and structural measures under the common agricultural policy was 24,101 mecu (£16,854 million); in addition some 4,512 mecu (£3,155 million) of expenditure on agricultural market support in November and December 1987 could not be met from the 1987 budget and will fall on the 1988 budget.

  The total Community budget for 1987 including agriculture (but excluding the carry over) was 36,168 mecu (£25,292 million) compared to 34,219 mecu (£22,169 million) outturn in 1986.

  Details of the value of agricultural exports from the Community in 1987 are not yet available.

  Rapeseed
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been(a) the EEC guarantee threshold and (b) actual output for rapeseed compared with EEC output over the past 10 years; what assessment he has made of why the reduction of 10 per cent. in the guarantee price in 1987 did not result in a fall in output; what assessment has been made of the effect a further reduction in price of 8 per cent. will have on output; at what stage further price reductions will be triggered; what contribution these arrangements have made towards reducing agricultural surpluses; and what effect the EEC subsidies have had on imports from (i) the developing countries and (ii) other countries.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him today by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The 1987 price reduction could not have affected rapeseed output this year since the decision was taken after the crop was planted. The additional estimated price reduction of 8 per cent. for 1988 is based on the Commission's assumed production for this year. If, however, 1988 or subsequent production proves higher than expected, additional price reductions will be introduced automaticaly in line with the objective of budgetary stabilisation.

  There is no overall Community oilseed surplus, only a need to reduce and stabilise support expenditure.

  Agricultural Commodities
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the increase in production of agricultural commodities in the EEC for the next five years; what estimates have been made of the effect this will have on the trade of third countries; and what assessment has been made of the implications for United Kingdom exports of manufactures to these countries.

  Mr. Gummer
  A range of projections of Community agricultural production and trade is contained in the Commission communication COM(87)1 final, 4 March 1987 (pp B4 to B85), a copy of which is in the Library of the House. The projections are based generally on past trends. Actual production in future years will depend on the reactions of the Community's 9 million farmers to the many factors influencing their decisions, including the new stabiliser arrangements, set-aside and Community decisions on agricultural support generally. Developments in world food trade will depend also on changes in agricultural support, production and consumption in other countries. Prospects for United Kingdom exports in manufactured goods will depend primarily on the competitive position of our manufacturing sector.

  New Forest (Keepers' Strike)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the rent strike by keepers of the New Forest; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have had no such representations.

  Sheepmeat Stabilisers
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if there is to be a separate scheme for Great Britain under the European Community proposals for sheepmeat stabilisers;

  (2) what is the maximum guaranteed quantity figures for ewes under the European Community proposals for sheepmeat stabilisers in (a) Great Britain and (b) the rest of the Community, including Northern Ireland;

  (3) what are the relevant percentage price reductions over the maximum guaranteed quantity, under the European Community proposals for sheepmeat stabilisers for (a) Great Britain and (b) the rest of the European Community, including Northern Ireland;

  (4) if he will make a statement on the implications of the proposed sheepmeat stabilisers for (a) Great Britain and (b) Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 19 February 1988]: The European Council at its meeting on 11–12 February had before it proposals for sheepmeat stabilisers which would provide for guarantee thresholds to be set at the estimated ewe numbers in 1987 of 18 million ewes for Great Britain; and of 44 million for the rest of the Community (including Northern Ireland). The texts provide that if these thresholds were exceeded subsequently, the basic price would be reduced — separately in Great Britain on the one hand and in the rest of the Community (including Northern Ireland) on the other—by 1 per cent. for each 1 per cent. overrun. The separate arrangement for Great Britain would be linked to the application of the variable premium scheme. The Foreign Affairs Council is expected to endorse the non-arable sector stabilisers at its meeting on 22–23 February.

  Other operational details, including the starting date for applying the proposed stabiliser mechanism and the precise percentages for the first basic price reductions, will be dealt with in implementing regulations which the EC Commission has yet to bring forward.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether, under the European Community proposals for sheepmeat stabilisers, there are any arrangement for minimum import prices;

  (2) what arrangements have been made, under the European Community proposals for sheepmeat stabilisers, for country imports into (a) Great Britain and (b) the rest of the European Community, including Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 19 February 1988]: The importation of sheepmeat into the Community from third countries is governed by voluntary restraint agreements between the EC and the main supplying countries. The VRAs make no distinction as between Great Britain and the rest of the Community, including Northern Ireland. Texts on the sheepmeat stabiliser proposals before the European Council at its meeting on 11–12 February include suggestions as to the points which might form part of the Community's eventual negotiating mandate for discussions with third countries about their future imports. One such point is that third countries should respect import price discipline.

  Coniferous Woodlands
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his policy is with regard to
  51
  coniferous woodlands being planted in areas of outstanding natural beauty under the farm woodland grant scheme.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 19 February 1988]: Every application for the farm woodland scheme which falls within an area of outstanding natural beauty will be carefully considered to ensure that it is compatible with that designation. This is irrespective of whether the proposed planting consists predominately of conifers or broadleaves or comprises a mixture of the two.

ENVIRONMENT

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department will collate regular statistics on the handling of applications by each local authority in England, indicating their performance in the execution of their duties under legislation on council house sales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Department currently requires detailed monthly reports from 11 local authorities whose processing of right-to-buy applications is unsatisfactory. Other authorities submit quarterly returns of applications received and sales completed, and may be brought within the formal monitoring arrangements if complaints received indicate that this is justified.

  Rate Levels
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the amount, in percentage terms, by which the 1988–89 rate levels in(a) Middlesbrough, (b) Langbaurgh, (c) Stockton and (d) Hartlepool will exceed average wage increases over the past 12 months.

  Mr. Chope
  Based on provisional information, the percentages by which domestic rate increases in 1988–89 will exceed wage increases over the past 12 months are shown below. No information is available yet for Langbaurgh.

  Percentage

  Middlesbrough

  -2

  Stockton

  +5

  Hartlepool

  +4

  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the amount by which in percentage terms the 1988–89 rates levels in(a) Middlesbrough, (b) Langbaurgh, (c) Stockton and Hartlepool will exceed the retail price index increase over the past 12 months.

  Mr. Chope
  Based on provisional information, the percentages by which domestic rate increases in 1988–89 will exceed the retail prices index increase are shown below. No information is yet available for Langbaurgh.

  Percentage

  Middlesbrough

  3

  Stockton

  10

  Hartlepool

  9

  Cleveland County Council
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the increase in the number of employees engaged by Cleveland county council in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Chope
  The numbers employed by Cleveland county council and the increase in each of the past five years is as follows:

  (Number employed—full and part-tme)

  June

  Total

  Change

  1983

  25,189

  —

  1984

  24,799

  -390

  1985

  24,664

  -135

  1986

  26,162

  +1,498

  11987

  26,539

  +377

  1 Provisional figures.

  Source: Joint Manpower Watch quarterly surveys.

  Domestic Rates
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the likely average household increase in rates in cash terms of ratepayers living in(a) Langbaurgh, (b) Middlesbrough, (c) Stockton and (d) Hartlepool for 1988–89.

  Mr. Chope
  Based on provisional information, the likely average household rate increases in cash terms in 1988–89 are shown below. No information is yet available for Langbaurgh.

  Average domestic bill (£) 1987–88

  Average domestic bill (£) 1988–89

  Increase £

  Middlesbrough

  455

  484

  29

  Stockton

  458

  522

  64

  Hartlepool

  384

  432

  48

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many additional staff he estimates on average district councils will need to recruit in order to implement the poll tax.

  Mr. Howard
  It is not possible to estimate an average figure. Different authorities will choose to adopt different computer systems some of which be relatively capital intensive while others will be relatively manpower intensive.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the average cost to a district council of preparing for the implementation of the poll tax.

  Mr. Howard
  The explanatory and financial memorandum attached to the Local Government Finance Bill contained an estimate of between £70 million and £90 million on the establishment of the register and preparation of new billing and collection systems. Those figures would equate to an average cost of between £174,000 and £223,000 for each collecting authority.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish revised exemplifications of community charge levels for all English and Welsh
  53
  authorities for 1987–88, taking into consideration (a) rates of Government estimates for likely evasion and other non-collection rates in each local authority area, and (b) the use of rate fund balances by authorities.

  Mr. Howard
  The Government have made no estimate of evasion and non-collection rates. The exemplifications we have published do take account of the use of balances.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many letters he has received from members of the public since 1985(a) in support of and (b) opposed to the community charge.

  Mr. Howard
  A summary of 1,271 responses received by my Department before 31 October 1986, when the consultation period on the Green Paper ended, was placed in the Library on 15 December 1986. Since June 1987, my Department has received some 3,800 letters, including about 3,400 from individual members of the public. The letters contain a variety of comments on specific aspects of our proposals or requests for further information, and for this reason do not readily lend themselves to an analysis of correspondents' views.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether poll tax registrars will have access to family practitioners committee lists of patients;

  (2) whether poll tax registrars will have access to district health authority lists of patients;

  (3) whether poll tax registrars will have access to the Department of Health and Social Security/National Health Service central register list of patients;

  (4) whether poll tax registrars will have access to the lists of women patients being used to call and recall women for cervical cancer screening.

  Mr. Howard
  Community charges registration officers will have access to none of these lists.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will reproduce the figures in figures 6 to 11 of his Department's note on the relationship between local taxes and income and the distributional impact of the community charge, on the basis of the rebate system currently in operation being applied to all figures.

  Household type

  Number receiving rate bills (millions)

  Total value gross rate bills (£million per annum)

  Numbers entitled to rebates (millions)

  Total value rebates (£million per annum)

  Single pensioner

  2·5

  795·7

  1·6

  321·6

  Other single adult

  2·2

  723·5

  0·7

  167·2

  Two adults

  11·1

  4,471·3

  2·2

  421·2

  Three or more adults

  2·5

  1,060·7

  0·5

  67·3

  All

  18·3

  7,051·3

  5·0

  977·5

  The total value of the net bills for the households receiving rebate is not readily available.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will reproduce the figures in figures 7, 8, 10 and 11 of his Department's note on the relationship between local taxes and income and the distributional impact of the community charge, splitting the data for two adult households into pensioner couples and others.
  54
  Mr. Ridley
  No. By the time the community charge takes effect the new housing benefit system which Parliament has approved will have been in operation for two years.

  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what estimate he has made as to the proportion of the total number of people eligible for rebate in respect of the proposed community charge in England and Wales who will already be in receipt of means-tested benefits;

  (2) what is his estimate of the increase in the total number of people, including claimants and their dependants, who will become entitled to means-tested benefits following the introduction of the community charge in England and Wales; and what estimate he has made as to the numbers who will then be eligible for a community charge rebate but will not claim it.

  Mr. Scott
  I have been asked to reply.

  I regret that it is not possible to provide estimates in the form requested. The Government's Green Paper "Paying for Local Government," published in 1986, estimated the community charge rebate case load in Great Britain at 7·66 million, 1·17 million above the rate rebate case load. No detailed estimates using more up-to-date assumptions are available. The Green Paper figures were based on potential entitlement and did not take account of failure to claim benefit. Nearer to the time we will be publicising the availability of community charge rebates.

  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will extract from the data used in the construction of figures 9 to 11 of his Department's note on the relationship between local taxes and income and the distributional impact of the community charge in England (1) the number of households receiving rate bills, (2) the total value of their gross bills, (3) the number of households receiving rebates, (4) the total value of such rebates and (5) the total value of the net bills for the households receiving rebates, the figures to be provided(a) for all households in England and (b) separately for (i) one adult (non-retired), (ii) one adult (retired), (iii) a pensioner couple, (iv) other two adult households with or without children, (v) three adults with or without children and (vi) four or more adults, with or without children.

  Mr. Ridley
  The estimates requested are as follows:

  Mr. Ridley
  The following tables split the figures for two-adult households and tax units in figures 7, 8, 10 and 11 of the Department's note of 13 January 1988 on the relationship between local taxes and income, showing the results for "pensioner couples" and "other couples" separately.
  55

  Figure 7: Impact of the Community Charge with safety nets (1990–91 position: England)

  Thousands of gainers and losers: Household types

  Two adults

  Pensioner couples

  Others

  Pounds per week

  Losers

  10+

  —

  —

  5–10

  15

  85

  2–5

  200

  1,465

  1–2

  220

  1,220

  0–1

  725

  2,225

  Total losers

  1,165

  4,995

  Gainers

  0–1

  285

  1,750

  1–2

  120

  855

  2–5

  145

  1,175

  5–10

  60

  450

  10+

  15

  115

  Total gainers

  625

  4,350

  Percentage of net income

  Losers

  10+

  —

  0

  5–10

  5

  10

  2–5

  170

  520

  1–2

  240

  1,150

  0–1

  750

  3,310

  Total losers

  1,165

  4,995

  Gainers

  0–1

  355

  2,935

  1–2

  150

  950

  2–5

  105

  435

  5–10

  10

  25

  10+

  0

  5

  Total gainers

  625

  4,350

  Figure 8: impact of the Community Charge with safety nets (1990–91 position: England)

  Thousands of gainers and losers: tax unit types

  Two adults

  Pounds per week

  Pensioner couples

  Others

  Losers

  10+

  —

  5

  5–10

  40

  155

  2–5

  285

  1,775

  1–2

  270

  1,325

  0–1

  795

  2,330

  Total losers

  1,385

  5,590

  Gainers

  0–1

  295

  1,915

  1–2

  125

  975

  2–5

  155

  1,310

  5–10

  60

  515

  10+

  15

  155

  Total gainers

  650

  4,870

  Percentage of net income

  Losers

  10+

  —

  5

  5–10

  15

  30

  2–5

  245

  720

  1–2

  310

  1,330

  0–1

  810

  3,500

  56

  Two adults

  Pounds per week

  Pensioner couples

  Others

  —

  —

  Total losers

  1,385

  5,590

  Gainers

  0–1

  370

  3,225

  1–2

  155

  1,080

  2–5

  110

  520

  5–10

  10

  40

  10+

  0

  10

  Total gainers

  650

  4,870

  Figure 10: Impact of the Community Charge with no safety nets (England)

  Thousands of gainers and losers: Household types

  Two adults

  Pensioner couples

  Others

  Pounds per week

  Losers

  10+

  15

  115

  5–10

  35

  320

  2–5

  220

  1,335

  1–2

  160

  960

  0–1

  565

  1,700

  Total losers

  995

  4,430

  Gainers

  0–1

  355

  1,500

  0–2

  120

  1,085

  2–5

  210

  1,525

  5–10

  75

  660

  10+

  20

  160

  Total gainers

  780

  4,930

  Percentage of net income

  Losers

  10+

  5

  5

  5–10

  30

  110

  2–5

  200

  765

  1–2

  220

  1,080

  0–1

  545

  2,470

  Total losers

  995

  4,430

  Gainers

  0–1

  415

  2,870

  1–2

  180

  1,355

  2–5

  170

  650

  5–10

  15

  45

  10+

  —

  10

  Total gainers

  780

  4,930

  Figure 11: Impact of the Community Charge with no safety nets (England)

  Thousands of Gainers and Losers: Tax unit types

  Two Adults

  Pensioner couples

  Others

  Pounds per week

  Losers

  10+

  15

  130

  5–10

  60

  395

  2–5

  295

  1,595

  1–2

  205

  1,060

  57

  Two Adults

  Pensioner couples

  Others

  0–1

  635

  1,795

  Total Losers

  1,215

  4,970

  Gainers

  0–1

  370

  1,615

  0–2

  130

  1,205

  2–5

  215

  1,705

  5–10

  80

  760

  10+

  20

  200

  Total Gainers

  820

  5,490

  Percentage of net income

  Losers

  10+

  5

  5

  5–10

  50

  145

  2–5

  275

  940

  1–2

  275

  1,245

  0–1

  610

  2,635

  Total Losers

  1,215

  4,970

  Gainers

  0–1

  435

  3,105

  1–2

  190

  1,535

  2–5

  175

  770

  5–10

  15

  65

  10+

  0

  15

  Total Gainers

  820

  5,490

  North Tyneside Borough Council
  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if North Tyneside borough council's grant-related expenditure allocation and grant relief entitlement for 1985–86 onwards will be adjusted to reflect the acceptance by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys that the level of estimated emigration for 1982–83 requires adjustment to reflect the estimated population figures in subsequent years.

  Mr. Chope
  The policy of the Secretary of State is to use the population of an area and the numbers of persons of particular ages in the area estimated by the Registrar General and certified by him for rate support grant purposes. However, the Secretary of State will consider representations made to him concerning revisions to population estimates before making his decisions for future supplementary reports for 1985–86 and later years.

  Pikehall Farmhouse, Derbyshire
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how long it took him to come to a decision on the planning application in respect of the outbuilding near Pikehall farm, Pikehall, Hartington Nether Quarter, Derbyshire; and if he will give the reason for this length of time.

  Mrs. Roe
  A listed building consent application for demolition of the stable block of outbuildings at Pikehall farm was determined by the Secretary of State on 12 November 1983 in just under 12 months from the date when it was removed from the jurisdiction of the Peak Park planning board.
  58
  Suitably qualified and experienced inspectors are in short supply, and inquiries often take some time to arrange. A decision was further delayed in this case because the inspector adjourned the inquiry to allow parties to produce further information.

  Estate Action Schemes
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much of the £75 million set aside for Estate Action schemes in 1987–88 has been finally approved to date; what proportion of this total to date has been approved for continuing schemes; and how much has been finally approved for new schemes in 1987–88.

  Mrs. Roe
  Of the £75 million additional resources available to Estate Action in 1987–88, £74,635 million has been formally allocated to local authorities, 53 per cent. has been allocated to continuation schemes and 47 per cent. to new schemes. The remaining £360,000 is on the point of formal allocation to continuation schemes.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what sums have been put into Estate Action schemes by private developers since 1985–86; and how many schemes to date have been supplemented by resources from private developers;

  (2) how much council-owned property had been sold to private developers as part of Estate Action schemes since his Department began targeting the housing investment programme via estate action in 1985–86.

  Mrs. Roe
  To date some 4,600 council dwellings have been, or are in the course of being, disposed of to the private sector as part of Estate Action packages to revitalise rundown estates. Forty two schemes have been accompanied by private investment. It is not possible to say precisely how much money each private investor has contributed.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what factors his Department has taken into consideration in dividing the total Estate Action allocation of £75 million between regional offices; and how much of the allocation has been allocated to each regional office.

  Mrs. Roe
  Estate Action resources are distributed regionally on the basis of the quality and number of individual schemes submitted by local authorities in each region. The amounts allocated for schemes in each region in 1987–88 so far are as follows:

  Region

  £ million

  Northern

  8·040

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  10·898

  North-west

  21·948

  Merseyside Task Force

  3·934

  West midlands

  10·669

  East midlands

  4·085

  Eastern

  0·362

  South-east

  0·058

  South-west

  0·497

  London

  14·144

  74·635

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many of Estate Action's continuing schemes have been finally approved to date by each of his Department's regional offices.
  59
  Mrs. Roe
  The number of Estate Action continuation schemes which have received additional resources this year to date is shown below:

  Continuation schemes in 1987–88

  Region

  Number

  Northern

  16

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  13

  North-west

  21

  Merseyside task force area

  6

  West midlands

  5

  East midlands

  4

  Eastern

  1

  South-east

  1

  South-west

  0

  London

  19

  TOTAL

  86

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the criteria for approvals of Estate Action schemes which his Department used in(a) 1985–86, (b) 1986–87 and (c) 1987–88; and what the criteria for the approval of Estate Action schemes will be in 1988–89.

  Mrs. Roe
  The criteria used in assessing Estate Action proposals submitted by local authorities have been constant since the programme was launched in June 1985 and remain the same for the coming financial year. They are spelt out in detail in the annual reports published in 1986 and 1987, copies of which are in the Library. Each application is considered on its merits with priority given to those proposals which offer residents greater choice and control over their living conditions and environment and which take full advantage of any opportunities for combining public and private sector skills and resources; under estate action's homelessness initiative additional resources are made available to help local authorities bring vacant properties on estates back into use to benefit homeless people.

  ACE Funding
  Mr. Allen Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in what way he gives assistance to agencies in the United Kingdom for the purposes of securing funds under the European Commission's Action by the Community in the Environment regulations; and if he will make a statement on his policy toward the European Community level of ACE funding.

  Mrs. Roe
  My Department is in regular contact with agencies interested in applying for funds under ACE regulation, offering advice and guidance. We supported adoption of the regulation in the Environment Council and its renewal in 1987, and are satisfied with the level of funding being offered.

  English House Condition Survey
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the percentage of dwellings in the English house condition survey where the temperature in the interview room was below 21 degrees Celsius; and what were the temperatures on the stairways and the percentage of retirement pensioner households involved in the survey.

  Mrs. Roe
  This information is not yet available.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the amount of expenditure incurred by the Nature Conservancy Council in England, Scotland and Wales, expressed as a figure per hectare of land designated as a site of special scientific interest, in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The NCC does not maintain records of expenditure in the form requested and this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. I will write to the hon. Member.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has yet received a response from the Nature Conservancy Council on the possibility of selling off reserves.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) on 17 February, 1988, at columns 959–60. The NCC is conducting an internal review of its national nature reserve policy, which is due to be completed later this year.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list each outstanding planning application submitted by the Property Services Agency, giving details of address, development applied for and size of site in respect of land declared surplus to requirements by other Government Departments, noting the Department for which the Property Services Agency is acting in each case.

  Mr. Chope
  The information is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Tyne and Wear Development Corporation
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will supply details of(a) private sector and (b) Government funding for the Tyne and Wear development corporation for each year since its formation and the number of jobs created.

  Mr. Chope
  Tyne and Wear development corporation has received £1·83 million in Exchequer grant-in-aid all in 1987–88. The corporation was established on 15 May 1987. It is too early to make accurate estimates of the private sector investment stimulated or the number of jobs created.

  London Residuary Body
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much of the distributable revenue balances as set out by the London residuary body in its 1987–88 budget has been distributed.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on 13 January 1988, at column 275.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many staff were employed by the London residuary body for the purpose of carrying out its functions as of 31 March 1986; how many are currently employed; and how many he estimates will be employed in the coming 12 months.
  61
  Mr. Chope
  The London residuary body did not inherit its functions from the former GLC until 1 April 1986. On that date the LRB employed 3,580 staff. It currently employs 2,114 staff. Future staffing levels are a matter for the LRB to determine having regard to its remaining functions and workload. On present forecasts, it estimates that staff numbers will have fallen to 900 by the end of 1988–89. All figures are full-time equivalents.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much was received by the London residuary body from the sale of the motor vehicle registration number ALC 1, previously used by the chairman of the Greater London council.

  Mr. Chope
  The sum is £2,500.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has about the London residuary body's current estimate of capital assets awaiting disposal.

  Mr. Chope
  None.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what dates in each case 1986–87 revenue balances and capital receipts were paid to London boroughs; what were the amounts; and how each payment varied from the original estimates.

  Mr. Chope
  The amount of revenue balances and capital receipts distributed by the LRB to London boroughs in 1986–87 is published in LRB's annual report and accounts available in the Library. The estimates of amounts to be paid were contained in LRB's published budget, copies of which I am arranging to be placed in the Library. Timing of payments is the responsibility of the LRB.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by what date 1987–88 revenue balances and capital receipts will be paid in full to the London boroughs.

  Mr. Chope
  The payment of capital receipts by the London residuary body to the London boroughs is governed by the Local Government Reorganisation (Capital Money) (Greater London) Order 1987, SI 1987/118. This provides that the residuary body shall use its best endeavours to secure that payments are made on or before the last day of the financial year in question. Any part of a payment not so made shall be paid no later than 30 June in the next financial year.

  The date for payment of revenue balances is a matter for the LRB.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply of 13 January,Official Report, columns 275–77, what percentage of former Greater London council assets which passed to the London residuary body are now estimated to have been disposed of.

  Mr. Chope
  The London residuary body has disposed of Thamesmead and the industrial portfolia. Substantial progress has been made towards the disposal of the seaside and country homes and properties in Covent Garden.62
  County hall and about 500 residential units are being marketed. Of the remaining 1,620 properties which the LRB inherited and are considered marketable, terms have been agreed in about 50 per cent. of cases. Properties required by successors for functional purposes will be transferred to them.

  MOD Properties (Sales)
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many Ministry of Defence houses in(a) Scotland and (b) Renfrew, West and Inverclyde have been sold in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Chope
  The figures are as follows:

  Number

  11979–81

  Nil

  1981–82

  7

  1982–83

  13

  1983–84

  12

  1984–85

  12

  1985–86

  13

  1986–87

  15

  1 Inclusive

  Green Belt
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the area of designated green belt land in the St. Albans constituency(a) in 1979 and (b) at the present time.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 17 February 1988]: Prior to the approval of the Hertfordshire structure plan in September 1979 approximately 3,000 hectares of land in the St. Albans constituency were designated green belt. Following approval of the structure plan, approximately 8,300 hectares of land are now designated as green belt.

  Northern Development Agency
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the amounts spent on industrial, investments and environmental improvements by the northern development agency in the Blyth Valley constituency, in each year since 1983.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Northern Development Company (NDC) has been in existence only since July 1986. In the current financial year this Department has made available £908,000 to the NDC for its inward investment promotion activities, and a further £210,000 for a wider range of activities aimed at the regeneration of the region's economy. The NDC does not engage directly in industrial investment or environmental improvement activities. The NDC's total budget for this year is £1,844,000. However, information is not available on the geographical spread of NDC expenditure.

  The NDC's predecessor was the North of England Development Council, which was concerned solely with inward investment and export promotion.

  Building Workers (Accident Statistics)
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has about(a) the number of accidents and (b) the number of fatal accidents involving building workers employed on sites in London's docklands in the past six years.
  63
  Mr. Nicholls
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Olympic-Standard Swimmers (Training)
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the training facilities available for Olympic-standard swimmers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Most training for Britain's Olympic swimmers takes place at club level, using local swimming facilities. Preparation also includes training and competition experience in 50-metre pools of which there are currently 8 indoor and 23 outdoor in England and Wales. Britain's Olympic swimming squad trains as a group at one of these pools at the Crystal Palace national sports centre. The Sports Council is currently reviewing its strategy on swimming pool provision in discussion with the Amateur Swimming Association, and will be looking at the provision of training facilities for Olympic-standard swimmers and of pools for international competition.

  Treasure Trove
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the members of the review body on treasure trove laws and those organisations whom he proposes to consult.

  Mr. Moynihan
  There is no review body as such. On 11 February I announced the issue by the Department and the Welsh Office of a consultation paper on arrangements for reporting archaeological finds. Responses to this will be evaluated by officials, who will take into account the conclusions of a recent paper by the Law Commission on the law of treasure trove and a review by an interdepartmental group of officials under Treasury chairmanship of the arrangements for payment of awards to finders of treasure trove. Copies of the consultation paper have been sent to a number of interested individuals and to the representative organisations as set out. We shall be happy to provide further copies to any other groups or individuals who wish to contribute to the review.

  Ancient Monuments Society

  Association of Archaeological Officers

  Association of Chief Police Officers

  Association of County Councils

  Association of District Councils

  Association of Larger Local Councils

  Association of London Authorities

  Association of London Borough Planning Officers

  Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  Avon County Council

  Brick Development Association

  British Aggregate

  British Association of Landscape Industries

  British Ball Clay Producers Federation

  British Coal

  British Fluorspar Producers

  British Gas Corporation

  British Museum

  British Numismatic Society

  British Pre-cast Concrete Federation

  British Property Federation

  British Reclamation Industries Confederation

  British Telecom

  British Waterways Board

  CADW

  C. Scope International (Metal Detector Manufacturers)

  64

  Cement Makers Federation

  Central Council for Physical Recreation

  Central Electricity Generating Board

  Chartered Institute of Building

  Chief Professional Planning Appeals Commission (N. Ireland)

  China Clay Association

  Civic Trust

  Confederation of Construction Specialists

  Conservation Society

  Cornish Chambers of Mines

  Council for British Archaeology

  Council for Environmental Conservation

  Council for National Parks

  Council for the Protection of Rural England

  Country Land Agents and Valuers Association

  Country Landowners Association

  Countryside Commission

  County Planning Officers Society

  County Surveyor's Society

  Department of Transport

  Detector Information Group

  District Planning Officers Society

  Dorset Archaeological Committee

  Faculty of Architects and Surveyors

  Federation of Civil Engineering

  Federation of Master Builders

  Federation of Small Mines of Great Britain

  Forestry Commission

  The Geological Society

  The Georgian Group

  The Guild of Surveyors

  Hays Group Ltd (Metal Detector Manufacturers)

  The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission

  The Home Office

  House Builders Federation

  Incorporated Association of Architects and Surveyors

  Institute of Building

  Institute of Chartered Foresters

  Institute of Civil Engineers

  Institute of Field Archaeologists

  Institute of Mining Engineers

  Lake District Special Planning Board

  Law Commission

  Law Society

  Local Authorities Association

  London Boroughs Association

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Metropolitan Planning Officers Society

  Midland Archaeological Society

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Museums Association

  Museums and Galleries Commission

  Museum of London

  National Amenities Societies

  National Association of Agricultural Contractors

  National Association of Opencast Coal Operators

  National Association of Local Councils

  National Brick Federation

  National Council of Building Material Producers

  National Council for Metal Detecting

  National Farmers Union

  National Federation of Building Trade Employers

  National Federation of Clay Industries

  National Heritage Memorial Fund

  National Housebuilding Council

  National Housing and Town Planning Council

  National Trust

  Nature Conservancy Council

  Northern Ireland Office

  Office of Arts and Libraries

  The Open Spaces Society

  65

  Peak Park Joint Planning Board

  Police Federation

  Prehistoric Society

  The Ramblers Association

  Royal Commission on Historical Monuments for England

  Royal Institute of British Architects

  Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors

  Royal Numismatic Society

  Royal Society for Nature Conservation

  Sand and Gravel Association

  Scottish Development Department

  Silica and Moulding Sands Association

  Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings

  Society of Antiquaries

  Society of Museum Archaeologists

  Standing Conference of Rural Community Councils

  Standing Conference of Archaeological Unit Managers

  Standing Local Authority Officers on Land Reclamation

  Stone Federation

  Surrey Archaeological Society

  Tenant Farmers Association

  Timber Growers of Great Britain Ltd

  The Treasury

  Trust for Wessex Archaeology

  Victorian Society

  Wiltshire Archaeologists and Natural History Society

  Housing Needs Index (Nottinghamshire)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he received any representations from Nottingham city council regarding the effect of a reduction in the council house waiting list on the housing needs index, causing a £3·5 million reduction in anticipated income to housing associations in Nottinghamshire; and if he will make a statement.
  66
  Mr. Waldegrave
  Waiting list figures are not included in the housing needs index and my right hon. Friend has had no representation from Nottingham city council on the subject. I understand, however, that doubt has arisen over the calculation of certain Nottingham indicators and that the matter is under discussion between the Department and the Housing Corporation.

  Nuclear Installations (Decommissioning)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current status of research on decommissioning of nuclear installations under European Council decision 84/60 Euratom of 31 January 1984, specified in terms of section A, projects one to seven, section B and section C.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 19 February 1988]: I have placed a copy of the latest available progress report published by the European Commission "The Community's research and development programme on decommissioning of nuclear installations", report EUR 11112 EN, in the Library of the House. This covers the period up to the end of 1986. When the 1987 version is available I will place that in the Library also.

  Olympic-standard Swimming Pools
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, all those Olympic-standard swimming pools in England and Wales which are under local authority control; and which of them are open-air facilities.

  Mr. Moynihan
  There are no Olympic-standard swimming pools in England or Wales which are under local authority control or are open-air facilities.

TRANSPORT

  Rail Services (London)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the chairman of the Central Transport Consultative Committee to discuss the effects on the economy of the level of rail services to the City of London.

  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the chairman of the Central Transport Consultative Committee to discuss the effects on the economy of the level of rail services to the City of London.

  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the chairman of the Central Transport Consultative Committee to discuss the effects on the economy of the level of rail services to the City of London.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, when he next meets the chairman of the Central Transport Consultative Committee, he will discuss the effects on Britain's economy of the level of rail services to the City of London.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to do so.

  Transport Subsidies
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has had any discussions with EEC Transport Ministers concerning the harmonisation of public transport subsidies.

  Mr. Channon
  No.

  Mr. Holland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy towards harmonising public transport subsidy levels across the EEC by 1992.

  Mr. Channon
  There is already a degree of harmonisation in the form of EEC directives on public service obligations and the granting of state aids for transport by rail, road and inland waterways. I see no need for further harmonisation in these areas.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to increase the level of subsidy to public transport in major cities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  No. The objective of this Government has been to achieve a better balance between the interests of those who benefit from public transport subsidy and the ratepayers and taxpayers who must pay for it. As a result of our policies, annual revenue support for local bus and rail services in the English metropolitan areas has been reduced by about £85 million since 1985–86. This represents a considerable saving to both ratepayers and taxpayers, without any diminution in the overall level of service.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has about the subsidy levels to public transport in each capital city of each member state of the EEC, expressed as a percentage of total revenue.
  68
  Mr. David Mitchell
  None, except for London, in which connection I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 18 January at column 528.

  Rillington Bypass
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on plans for a route for the Rillington bypass; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Bids will be invited shortly from the consulting engineers for the contract to identify the preferred route for the scheme.

  Driving Test
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received seeking changes in the driving test.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We regularly receive ideas from all quarters. The changes most often suggested are for the test to include motorway driving and night-time driving, a written test on the highway code and a different test of eyesight.

  Rail Services (Quality)
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of the Central Transport Consultative Committee to discuss the quality of rail services.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of the Central Transport Consultative Committee to discuss the quality of rail services.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I refer the hon. Members to my reply earlier today to the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Haynes).

  Road Tolls
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the use of road tolls.

  Mr. Channon
  A number of motoring and freight transport organisations have expressed opposition to the introduction of road tolls. Some construction and financial organisations have expressed interest in building privately financed roads which might involve charging. I have no plans to impose tolls on existing roads.

  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received any recent proposals from the private sector for the construction of new toll roads; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Costain has recently put forward in outline ideas for a road tunnel under the Thames and for a second tier on the M25. These plans do not as yet constitute firm proposals. As we said in the 1987 White Paper, the Government are keen to encourage initiatives by the private sector for adding to the level of transport infrastructure wherever this is the most cost-effective way of providing the facilities concerned. We shall be pleased to look at any firm proposals in that light.

  Safety Standards
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he plans to revise the enforcement of transport safety regulations in passenger transport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Channon
  I attach great importance to all aspects of passenger transport safety and its enforcement. At present I have no plans to make revisions to the system of enforcement.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what priority is given to safety standards in the formation of his Department's passenger transport policies.

  Mr. Channon
  Safety is one of my top priorities.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to improve safety standards in passenger transport operations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Effective and appropriate safety standards must be a continuing preoccupation of any Secretary of State for Transport. My right hon. Friend regularly reviews and improves them where this is justified.

  London Underground Stations
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has held any recent discussions with the chairman of London Regional Transport on the future staffing of London underground stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has held any recent discussions with the chairman of London Regional Transport on the future staffing of London underground stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has held any recent discussions with the chairman of London Regional Transport on the future staffing of London underground stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, when he last met the chairman of London Regional Transport, he held any discussions on the future staffing of London underground stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I have not discussed underground staffing matters; they are for management, in accordance with its statutory duty to operate safely and efficiently. Within that framework, I would expect staff levels to reflect the manpower required to do the job.

  Network SouthEast
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Rail to discuss the volume of service on Network SouthEast.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  My right hon. Friend last met the chairman on 11 February and discussed a wide range of matters of current interest.

  Commuter Services
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he plans to revise his policy towards commuter transport in the light of the report from the City Commuter Services group, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Our policy is that BR should provide its customers with an attractive and reliable service meeting the quality standards I have set, while reducing its call on the taxpayer. I see no reason to change that.

  Rail Services (London to Holyhead)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next proposes to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss railway services between London and Holyhead.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Rail services on particular routes are a matter for BR management. Hence I have no plans to discuss the London-Holyhead service with the chairman in the near future.

  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the capital allocations for transport and transport supplementary grant allocated to each London borough for the years 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The list for the 33 boroughs is in the table. The total capital allocations for London are 1986–87—£104 million, 1987–88—£108·8 million and 1988–89—£122·9 million.

  London borough councils—Transport capital allocations 1986–87, 1987–88, 1988–89 (£ million)

  Borough

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Barking

  1·2

  2·6

  6·1

  Barnet

  1·7

  1·3

  1·0

  Bexley

  5·0

  1·8

  2·7

  Brent

  1·9

  1·1

  1·2

  Bromley

  1·6

  1·7

  8·8

  Camden

  2·0

  1·4

  0·4

  City

  2·5

  1·3

  0·6

  Croydon

  1·2

  1·2

  0·7

  Ealing

  4·8

  5·1

  6·4

  Enfield

  9·0

  16·3

  22·8

  Greenwich

  3·1

  5·2

  3·4

  Hackney

  2·3

  1·7

  1·7

  Hammersmith

  0·8

  0·4

  0·3

  Haringey

  3·8

  3·4

  8·3

  Harrow

  3·0

  4·1

  9·6

  Havering

  4·8

  3·5

  1·3

  Hillingdon

  8·2

  7·3

  10·5

  Hounslow

  1·8

  2·0

  1·7

  Islington

  0·4

  0·8

  0·4

  Kensington

  1·2

  0·7

  1·1

  Kingston

  9·1

  9·8

  5·6

  Lambeth

  1·0

  1·1

  0·8

  Lewisham

  1·7

  1·8

  2·4

  Merton

  3·9

  7·8

  6·7

  Newham

  4·3

  3·5

  2·6

  Redbridge

  2·4

  2·8

  1·9

  Richmond

  1·2

  0·9

  0·7

  Southwark

  3·9

  3·0

  4·4

  Sutton

  2·0

  2·2

  2·6

  Tower Hamlets

  1·0

  1·0

  0·6

  71

  Borough

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Waltham Forest

  2·8

  2·7

  1·7

  Wandsworth

  6·2

  6·9

  2·4

  Westerminster

  4·2

  2·4

  1·5

  Total

  104·0

  108·8

  122·9

  Runway Capacity (South-east England)
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on runway capacity in the south-east of England.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The 1985 White Paper "Airports Policy" (Cmnd 9542) set out the pattern of airport development to meet the demand for air travel into the mid-1990s. We naturally keep the adequacy of capacity, including runway capacity, under review—as does the Civil Aviation Authority which has a statutory duty to make formal recommendations to my right hon. Friend on such matters.

  Main Line Service (St. Pancras-Sheffield)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how Government financial targets and guidelines have affected British Rail's investment in improving the midland main line service between St. Pancras and Sheffield.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  This service is part of BR's Inter-City network on which it is expected to earn a commercial rate of return. The board's confidence in the future of the line is demonstrated by its recent investment in a new pullman service and a £25 million resignalling programme.

  Aircraft (Near Misses)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many official reports of near misses involving aircraft in British air space there have been in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The latest Civil Aviation Authority statistics for air miss incidents involving all types of military and civil aircraft in United Kingdom air space over the last five years for which complete figures are available are:

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  A. Definite risk of collision

  20

  13

  21

  14

  21

  B. Possible risk of collision

  55

  62

  57

  52

  50

  Total risk-bearing (A+B)

  75

  75

  78

  66

  71

  C. No risk of collision

  96

  92

  93

  77

  104

  Total air misses (A+B+C)

  171

  167

  171

  143

  175

  Garden of Remembrance (Theydon Bois)
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a grant to the Theydon Bois parish council to defray the expense of tree planting to shield the garden of remembrance at the local burial ground from noise from the M11.
  72
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We are prepared to consider the possibility of a tree planting scheme under the terms of section 253 of the Highways Act 1980. The Department's regional office will get in touch with the parish council for a discussion.

  Settle-Carlisle Railway
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he now expects to make an announcement about the future of the Settle to Carlisle railway.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  As soon as all necessary consultations are complete.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current local authority contribution to(a) the provision of the diesel multiple unit service on the Settle to Carlisle railway, (b) the upkeep and maintenance of the line, (c) the advertising and publicity of the line and (d) express passenger services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I understand that during 1987–88 local authorities have contributed about £70,000 in general revenue support for the line (not attributable to individual services) and nothing towards the upkeep and maintenance of the infrastructure of the line, although some parish councils do give some general assistance towards the upkeep and general tidiness of their local stations. I also understand that local authorities contributed about £9,000 towards publicity for the line in 1987. During the next two financial years, revenue support from local authorities is expected to rise to about £130,000 if the line is retained. I have asked each authority to consider carefully the level of support it should give to the line—towards both the costs of operations and the cost of repairing the Ribblehead viaduct — in view of the importance it attaches to retaining it.

  London Regional Transport
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects London Regional Transport to publish its draft strategic plan for future operations; and over what period it will be open for consultation.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I understand that LRT intends to issue a consultative document shortly; to allow some eight weeks for responses; and to publish a new statement of strategy before the end of June.

  Air Traffic (London Area)
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, when he next meets the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, he will raise with him the possible overcrowding of the skies around London.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend frequently meets the chairman of the authority to discuss matters of mutual interest, including air space issues affecting the London area, for which the authority is reponsible. My right hon. Friend will be visiting the London air traffic control centre in the near future to see the current provision of air traffic services and to discuss the plans of the national air traffic services for the future.

  Car Telephones
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the road safety implications of the use of telephones in cars.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We have received a number of representations. Most expressed concern at the safety implications of using in-car telephones in moving vehicles. The revised highway code, issued in March 1987, tells drivers not to use a hand-held telephone while their vehicle is moving, except in an emergency. Anyone who can afford a car telephone can afford, and should use, a hands-free microphone.

  Bus Services (London)
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of London Regional Transport to discuss London bus services.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of London Regional Transport to discuss bus services in Greater London.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  My right hon. Friend and I last met the chairman of London Regional Transport on 4 February to discuss a number of issues, including bus services.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to be in a position to make a statement on his policy towards privatising London bus services.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said during the recent debate on the London Regional Transport (Levy) Order 1988 that we intend to see Londoners enjoying the benefits of deregulation as soon as practicable, and that accordingly we have asked London Regional Transport to bring forward early proposals for the restructuring of London Buses Ltd. into smaller units which will be able to operate commercially in a competitive environment.

  King's Cross Station
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, on how many occasions the London fire brigade has been called to King's Cross underground station because of a fire or suspected fire since 18 November 1987; on which dates these calls were made; how many appliances attended on each occasion; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I understand from London Underground Limited that since 18 November 1987, the London fire brigade has been called to King's Cross underground station on five occasions. Three calls were false alarms — on 17 December, 10 January and 4 February. The other two calls were on 8 January and were in connection with tests carried out in connection with the formal investigation into the causes of the fire on 18 November. No record is kept by London Underground of the number of fire appliances attending calls.

  Central Transport Consultative Committee
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of the Central Transport Consultative Committee to discuss its recent reports.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  My right hon. Friend met the chairman last December and discussed a range of railway matters.

  Tyre Treads
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to implement the EEC recommendations on minimum tyre tread depth; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The European Commission has proposed a directive on minimum tyre tread depth for cars and light vehicles used throughout the Community. The question of implementation will arise only if this directive is adopted by the Council of Ministers. It has not yet been considered by the Council. In our view the Commission's proposals would impose unnecessary costs on motorists in the United Kingdom amounting to £70 million per year, with no significant benefit to road safety. I have placed a note in the Library summarising the cost and safety issues.

  London Buses Ltd.
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to change the policy guidelines issued to London Regional Transport concerning London Buses Ltd.; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The Government's broad objectives for London Regional Transport remain those set out in a letter of 20 July 1984 to the chairman. In the case of London Buses Ltd., my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has more recently asked LRT to bring forward early proposals for its restructuring into smaller units in preparation for the eventual deregulation of bus services in London.

  Rail Services
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to meet the chairman of the Transport Users Consultative Committee to discuss rail services.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to meet him.

  Staff Dispersal
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many divisions within his Department have been relocated out of London since 1979; what plans he has for further relocation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  About 80 per cent. of the Department's present staff of 14,000 is located outside London and, where practicable, work is already carried out in regional and local offices. In 1987, seven posts dealing with policy on driver licensing and vehicle taxation moved from London to Swansea and six posts in the
  75
  vehicle inspectorate technical training school moved from Stanmore to Bristol. Some 20 posts from the vehicle inspectorate's workshops and stores at Borehamwood will move to Bristol later this year. The Department keeps the question of what further blocks of work it might be cost effective to relocate under continuous review.

  Air space (Isle of Wight)
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many days in the last 12 months for which figures are readily available the Civil Aviation Authority has been notified that the danger area south of the Isle of Wight is safe for use by civilian aircraft and civil aircraft operators were notified and actually used the airspace.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The area to which my right hon. Friend refers consists of a number of separate danger areas within which activities dangerous to the flight of aircraft take place at different times. Unauthorised entry into danger areas is prohibited. Commercial flights normally fly in the controlled air space of the airways that go round the danger areas in question, but do not cross them. This enables such traffic to connect safely with the continental airways system.

  If my right hon. Friend requires more detailed information he would do best to approach the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority which is responsible for air traffic control.

  Liverpool Airport
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of Liverpool airport.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Under section 15 of the Airports Act 1986, my right hon. Friend last September proposed modifications to the Merseyside passenger transport authority's original scheme for the future ownership of Liverpool airport. The main modification proposed was that the PTA should not become a shareholder in the new airport company. Since accepting this, the Merseyside local authorities have been given extra time to work up various schemes for running the airport, but this has not resulted in the PTA putting forward an alternative. My right hon. Friend is now about to proceed with a scheme based on his September proposals.

  Motor Cyclists
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what improvement in safety, as measured by the number of fatalities and serious injuries to motor cyclists, there has been from the restriction of motor cycle learners to 125 cc machines and from the restriction of 16-year-olds to 50 cc machines limited to 30 mph.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The 30 mph maximum speed restriction for 50 cc machines was introduced in 1977. The number of 16-year-olds killed or seriously injured (KSI) on mopeds has dropped from 1,691 in 1976 to 789 in 1986—a reduction of 53 per cent. After taking account of the reduction in the number of registered mopeds in that period, the reduction in 16-year-old KSI casualties is 36 per cent.

  The maximum engine size for learner motor cycles was reduced from 250 cc to 125 cc with effect from 1 February
  76
  1983. A study by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory — RR 106 "The Effect on Motorcycling of the 1981 Transport Act"—suggests that the restriction on engine capacity for learner motor cycles has led to a reduction of one quarter in casualties even allowing for the declining number of motor cyclists. This is equivalent to a reduction of 7,010 in motor cyclist casualties during the first year the restriction was in force, 2,430 of whom would have been killed or seriously injured.

  Aircraft Noise
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what grants are available to people living near to major airports towards the installation of double glazing; when this grant was last increased; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Except at Heathrow and Gatwick, noise insulation grants are a matter for the airport operator. We understand that several airports pay such grants.

  The Government have designated Heathrow and Gatwick for noise insulation grants purposes and have made various noise insulation grant schemes. The most recent schemes for these airports which provided for grants to be paid by the British Airports Authority (as it was then) were introduced in 1980. The amounts payable were increased in 1981, and the schemes effectively ended in March 1985.

  As promised in the 1985 airport policy White Paper (Cmnd. 9542) the schemes have been reviewed. The review suggested that there were small areas outside the scheme boundary at each airport which should be included retrospectively within the scheme. There should be no change to:

  the description of dwellings to which the scheme applied,

  the qualifications for eligibility,

  the specification for the work to be done,

  the residential qualification date.

  Any additional grants would be paid, as before, by BAA plc. The amount of grant payable would be adjusted to current prices.

  We are discussing with BAA plc the suggested small adjustment to the scheme boundaries and we shall make an announcement when these discussions are completed. We have no plans to introduce new schemes at these airports. We are committed to introducing a new scheme at Stansted when the airport reaches 2 million passengers per annum.

  Air Traffic Movements
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what has been the level of air traffic movements at Stansted airport during each of the last five years;

  (2) what has been the level of air traffic movements at Gatwick airport during each of the last five years;

  (3) what has been the level of air traffic movements at London airport, Heathrow, during each of the last five years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The total number of aircraft movements including general aviation, positioning flights and so on, for each of the last five years at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports is shown in the table:
  77

  Aircraft movements1

  Heathrow 000's

  Gatwick 000's

  Stansted 000's

  1982–83

  274·9

  151·2

  33·4

  1983–84

  286·9

  152·8

  34·9

  1984–85

  298·8

  159·8

  40·4

  1985–86

  312·2

  170·8

  41·2

  1986–87

  318·8

  173·8

  46·8

  1 One movement is a single taking off or landing.

  Source: "BAA Traffic Statistics—1986–87".

  Shrewsbury Bypass
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give a start date and completion estimate for the A5 Shrewsbury bypass.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Subject to completion of the outstanding statutory procedures which include the compulsory purchase order, construction of the A5 Telford-Shrewsbury and A49 Shrewsbury bypasses is expected to start in the autumn of 1989 and take about two years.

  Lorries (Spray)
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further steps he is taking to reduce rear and frontal spray from lorries on motorways.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Regulations were introduced in November 1984 requiring from various dates heavy lorries and trailers to be fitted with spray-reducing devices complying with British Standards BS AU 200. The situation is improving as the number of heavy vehicles fitted increases. Lorry drivers should slow down in heavy rain to reduce spray and for reasons of safety.

  Chandler's Ford Bypass
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to make a start upon upgrading the Chandler's Ford bypass to motorway standards.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Subject to the outcome of outstanding legal proceedings in respect of one of the orders, we hope to let a contract later this year.

  Rail Crash (Colwich)
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire on 22 January,Official Report, column 905, if he can now give a final date for the publication of his inspector's report on the rail crash which occurred at Colwich, Staffordshire, in September 1986.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  It is anticipated that the consultations, to which I referred in my answer to the hon. Member on 22 January, will be completed by the end of the month. The report will then be printed with a view to publication at the end of March.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received about the provision of rail links between the regions and the Channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement.
  78
  Mr. David Mitchell
  I have received a number of representations about this issue. It is British Rail's responsibility to plan the provision of rail links to the tunnel. Section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act requires it to publish a plan setting out its proposals by the end of 1989.

  Unmanned Level Crossings
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State how many accidents involving motor vehicles have taken place at unmanned level crossings in each year since 1980.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The number of road/rail collisions at unmanned public road level crossings protected by road traffic light signals for each year from 1980 to 1986 is as follows:

  Number

  1980

  4

  1981

  12

  1982

  13

  1983

  9

  1984

  12

  1985

  24

  1986

  19

  1 1987

  20

  1 Provisional.

  Greece (British Visitors)
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has had discussions with his Greek counterpart regarding that country's attitude to British visitors on inclusive tours or seat-only arrangements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Paul Channon
  I have had no such discussions. But I understand that the tour operators' representatives are actively involved in discussions with the Greek authorities.

  Motorway Contraflows
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review the regulations on traffic contraflows on motorways, particularly as they apply to heavy vehicles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Yes. We are reviewing this as part of our current review of motorway safety. We hope to announce our conclusions in the spring.

  Search and Rescue Helicopters (Solent)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about search and rescue helicopter coverage in the Solent area.

  Mr. Channon
  At present, daytime search and rescue helicopter coverage in the Solent and central English Channel area is provided by Royal Navy helicopters based at Lee-on-Solent. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has been reviewing the deployment of Royal Navy and Royal Air Force search and rescue helicopters around the coast: full details of the new deployments will be announced shortly, but they will involve the withdrawal of the Royal Navy Wessex flight from Lee-on-Solent and its replacement by a Royal Navy Sea King flight at Portland. In addition, the deployment
  79
  of military aircraft at other bases will be adjusted to provide significantly better overall coverage in the English Channel—especially at night and in bad weather. The new military deployments will meet virtually all my normal requirements for civilian SAR coverage, but in view of the exceptional volume of shipping and air activity in the area I have decided to supplement the military service by inviting tenders for the provision of a civil search and rescue helicopter, probably based at Lee-on-Solent. The RAF will temporarily station one of its helicopters at Lee in the intervening period.

  Breeches Buoy
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has reviewed the use of breeches buoy rescue equipment by Her Majesty's coastguard; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Channon
  With the progressive improvement of lifeboat and helicopter search and rescue services, the use of the breeches buoy as a method of rescuing stranded mariners has progressively declined, and, as I recently informed my hon. Friend such equipment has been used for rescue purposes only twice in the past five years. I have now concluded that the provision of this equipment for use by HM Coastguard is no longer justified, and it will shortly be withdrawn.

  I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the many past and present regular and auxiliary coastguards who have perfected the use of the breeches buoy apparatus, and to assure them that its removal in no way diminishes the importance of the service which they provide.

  Breathalysers
  Sir Ian Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whether, in the light of current experience in Australia, the United States of America, Canada, Germany and France, he will introduce legislation to facilitate the installation of coin-in-the-slot breath-testing devices in hotels, clubs, public houses and any licensed premises in which alcohol is consumed; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether, in the light of current experience in Australia, the United States of America, Canada, Germany and France, he will introduce legislation to facilitate the installation of breathalyser ignition locks in motor vehicles generally and Government-owned vehicles in particular; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We view with interest the development of devices to deter drinking and driving and seek to assess experience of their operation. Self-testing devices can encourage drivers to drink up to the legal limit and underestimate the effects of the alcohol consumed. Ignition locks and other technological developments may have a role to play in the longer term. The best course of any driver is not to drink alcohol at all before driving.

EMPLOYMENT

  Small Firms Service
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average cost, including an estimate of all overhead costs, of answering each inquiry to the small firms service.

  Mr. Cope
  It is not possible to allocate costs solely to inquiries, since management of both the inquiry service and counselling service is closely interlinked. The small firms service in England in 1986–87 cost £4·7 million, excluding accommodation, dealt with 283,537 inquiries and provided 38,210 counselling sessions.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many full-time staff equivalents are employed in responding to inquiries to the small firms service.

  Mr. Cope
  Inquiries are handled in the main by inquiry officers of administrative officer grade. There are 58 such officers currently in post in the small firms service in England. Their duties however involve other responsibilities such as the management of the counselling service.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the anticipated costs of the small firms service in the financial year 1988–89, to the nearest £100,000; and what was the comparable expenditure on the small firms service in each of the last four financial years.

  Mr. Cope
  The provision for the small firms service in England in 1988–89, is £6·3 million. For 1987–88 the expected outturn expenditure is £5·9 million. In 1986–87 the small firms service cost £4–7 million. These figures exclude accommodation costs. The small firms service was managed by the Department of Trade and Industry until September 1985 and figures for 1985–86 and 1984–85 are not available on a comparable basis.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures of output he uses to assess the efficiency of the small firms service in responding to inquiries.

  Mr. Cope
  The small firms service uses several indicators to assess the efficiency of the inquiry service. Figures for the total number of inquiries are collected, and compared with prior years and against set targets. In 1986–87 inquiries totalled over 283,000 a 11·1 per cent. rise on the previous year with no significant increase in staff.

  An indicator of the usefulness of the information given is the percentage of inquiries from previous clients, or as a result of recommendations. In 1986–87 inquiries from these sources accounted for some 30 per cent. of the total number.

  These figures relate to England only. The small firms service in Scotland is administered by the Scottish Development Agency while the service in Wales it is administered by the Welsh Development Agency.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many civil servants are employed in his Department; what are their average weekly working
  81
  hours; and how many are (a) on flexitime, (b) on job-sharing schemes, (c) on a four-day working week or nine-day fortnight and (d) able to retire with full pension rights at 60 years.

  Mr. Lee
  There are 63,630 permanent civil servants employed in the Department of Employment group. Except for 5,499 working part-time (of which 176 are working on job-sharing schemes) all are full time and work a net 36 hours per week in the London pay area and a net 37 hours outside London. Almost all staff work on a flexitime basis and in those offices where staff do not work flexitime it is largely due either to personal preference or because the offices are small—for example, one or two staff—or part-time offices where it would be difficult to operate flexitime arrangements. The precise arrangement of hours for each part-time worker varies according to circumstances and it would be prohibitively expensive to find out how many work a four-day week or a nine-day fortnight. Of the total staff, 62,846 are able to retire with full pension rights at age 60 years.

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will show the increase in the retail prices index between 1979 and 1985 in annual averages, with rates and indirect taxes excluded.

  Mr. Lee
  The estimation of movements in the retail prices index excluding indirect taxes raises a number of conceptual and practical difficulties and the information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Domestic rates and water charges are readily excluded from the index and the results are as follows:

  RPI excluding domestic1 rates and water charges 12-month increases percentages

  January

  Per cent.

  1980

  18·5

  1981

  12·7

  1982

  11·5

  1983

  4·7

  1984

  5·0

  1985

  4·9

  1986

  5·3

  1987

  3·5

  1988

  3·1

  1 The effects of non-domestic rates on retail prices have not been excluded.

  Ports
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will review the operation of employment legislation as it affects British ports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  As regards registered dockworkers covered by the 1967 dock workers employment scheme, the Government's position remains as stated in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson)Official Report, Tuesday 17 November 1987, at column 915. There are no plans to review the operation of other employment legislation as it specifically affects British ports.

  Dock Labour Scheme
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the percentage rate of decline in the number of registered dock labour scheme employees since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The total of registered dockworkers declined from 25,770 at the end of 1979 to 9,945 at the end of 1987, a reduction of 61 per cent. This has been achieved through voluntary severances with Government financial assistance.

  Coalfield Communities Campaign
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from the Coalfield Communities Campaign concerning the promotion of employment in coalfield areas.

  Mr. Lee
  None. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a recent letter from the Coalfield Communities Campaign, but it did not refer to the promotion of employment in coalfield areas.

  Settle-Carlisle Railway Corridor
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he now expects to receive the Jarvis plc/Manpower Services Commission report on the Settle to Carlisle railway corridor; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  I expect to receive the report at the beginning of March, and intend that it will be published very shortly afterwards.

  Factory Inspectors
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many factory inspectors have(a) resigned and (b) retired in 1987; how many new recruits have been employed in the same year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  During 1987, a total of 30 of the Health and Safety Executive's factory inspectors resigned, 12 retired and 32 were recruited. A further 35 candidates were successful at the autumn 1987 recruitment competition for factory and agricultural inspectors.

  Chelsea Girl Ltd.
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the impact of the closure of Chelsea Girl Ltd., Ealing, upon job opportunities in Greenford and Northolt; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  I have received no advance notification of such a closure and thus have made no assessment of the impact upon local job opportunities. A range of employment, enterprise and training measures operated by my Department and the Manpower Services Commission is available to help anyone who becomes unemployed due to any closure.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what is the total number of claimants in Scotland who have been refused unemployment benefit
  83
  pursuant to the recommendations of the claimants investigation team (Scotland); and if he will break this figure down according to the reasons for withdrawal of benefit for each year from 1979 to 1987, and for each unemployment benefit office;

  (2) what is the total number of claimants in Scotland who have been refused unemployment benefit pursuant to the recommendations of local claimant investigation teams; and if he will break this figure down according to the reasons for withdrawal of benefit for each year from 1979 to 1987 and for each unemployment benefit office.

  Mr. Lee
  I take it that the hon. Member is referring to the Department of Employment's fraud investigators. While these investigators may in the nature of their work raise questions as to a claimant's entitlement to benefit, they have no authority to disallow a person's claim. That can be done only by independent adjudication authorities. It is, of course, the case that, following an investigation of possible benefit fraud, some claimants decide to modify or withdraw their claims.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what is the total number of unemployment benefit claimants referred to local claimant investigation teams for each of the unemployment benefit offices in Scotland for each year from 1979 to 1987;

  (2) what is the total number of unemployment benefit claimants referred to the claimant investigation teams (Scotland) for each of the unemployment benefit offices in Scotland for each year from 1979 to 1987;

  (3) what is the total of unemployment benefit claimants referred to the claimant investigation team (Scotland) in Scotland; and if he will break this figure down according to the reason's for referral, for each year from 1979 and for each unemployment benefit office;

  (4) what is the total number of unemployment benefit claimants referred to local claimants investigation teams in Scotland; and if he will break this figure down according to the reasons for referral, for each year from 1979 and for each unemployment benefit office;

  (5) what is the total number of unemployment benefit claimants referred to local claimant investigation teams and the claimant investigation team (Scotland) in Scotland; and if he will break this figure down for each unemployment benefit office for each year from 1979.

  Mr. Lee
  I take it that the hon. Member is referring to the Department of Employment's fraud investigators. Information is not available on the number of referrals to such investigators in the form requested. For Scotland as a whole, the total number of cases referred for investigation since 1984–85 is as follows:

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  11987–88

  To centrally based fraud investigators

  n.a.

  405

  448

  365

  To locally based fraud investigators

  6,880

  11,799

  14,561

  10,433

  1 The figures cover the period from 1 April 1987–31 December 1987 only.

  n.a. Not available

  Note:

  It is not possible to break these figures down by reasons for referral. In addition to the cases shown fraud investigators will have examined a number of other claims on their own initiative.
  84
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will place in the Library copies of any guidelines or rules of procedures issued to local claimant investigation teams relating to the interviewing of unemployed benefit claimants;

  (2) if he will place in the Library copies of any guidelines or rules of procedures issued to the claimant investigation team of Scotland relating to the interviewing of unemployed benefit claimants.

  Mr. Lee
  I take it that the hon. Member is referring to guidelines or rules of procedure issued to the Department of Employment's fraud investigators. I will place copies of the code of conduct issued to all such investigators in the Library. It would not be appropriate to make public the more detailed procedural guidance issued to staff.

  Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current proportion of staff within the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate engaged upon work related to(a) the long-term safety reviews of Magnox reactors, (b) generic work in relation to advanced gas-cooled reactors, (c) the safety of spent fuel reprocessing, (d) the pressurised water reactor and in particular Sizewell B and the application for Hinkley C, (e) general nuclear safety inspection of installations, (f) radioactive waste management (excluding reprocessing) and (g) the fast breeder reactor.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 13 January 1988,Official Report, at column 262. Currently, no staff are engaged on work directly related to the fast breeder reactor.

  Tourism
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were engaged in tourism in each of the travel-to-work areas covered by South Lakeland and Eden district councils at the latest convenient date.

  Mr. Lee
  The latest estimates, which relate to September 1984, are shown in the table. Those travel-to-work areas shown in brackets only cover small proportions of the local authority district under which they are listed.

  Employees in employment in tourism-related industries September 1984

  Travel-to-work areas

  Number

  South Lakeland local authority district

  Kendal

  1,800

  Windermere

  2,100

  (Settle)

  (400)

  Eden local authority district

  Penrith

  1,400

  (Keswick)

  (900)

  (Hexham)

  (1,200)

  Note: The figures do not include the self-employed.

  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the numbers of overnight visits to Cumbria by overseas visitors and what was their expenditure, over the last five years for which figures are available.
  85
  Mr. Lee
  Estimates of the number of visits and expenditure by overseas visitors in Cumbria in the years 1982 to 1986 are as follows:

  Number of visits

  Expenditure

  (000s)

  (£ millions)

  1982

  177

  16·0

  1983

  205

  17·2

  1984

  213

  21·9

  1985

  220

  26·9

  1986

  216

  25·1

  Estimates and projections of the population of working age

  (Thousand)

  Men aged 16 to 64 years

  Women aged 16 to 59 years

  Estimates

  Projections

  Estimates

  Projections

  1979

  1983

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1979

  1983

  1986

  1987

  1988

  North

  980

  993

  993

  992

  989

  900

  898

  899

  898

  896

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,522

  1,561

  1,573

  1,578

  1,580

  1,389

  1,407

  1,423

  1,428

  1,430

  East Midlands

  1,197

  1,241

  1,276

  1,283

  1,291

  1,083

  1,115

  1,146

  1,157

  1,166

  East Anglia

  578

  608

  632

  640

  647

  519

  545

  572

  578

  586

  South East

  5,317

  5,476

  5,587

  5,637

  5,663

  4,907

  4,995

  5,118

  5,151

  5,176

  Greater London1

  2,235

  2,229

  2,247

  2,214

  2,214

  2,091

  2,069

  2,095

  2,060

  2,062

  South West

  1,305

  1,369

  1,418

  1,427

  1,440

  1,201

  1,243

  1,296

  1,305

  1,317

  West Midlands

  1,641

  1,681

  1,696

  1,701

  1,702

  1,477

  1,495

  1,510

  1,521

  1,526

  North West

  1,991

  2,025

  2,037

  2,040

  2,039

  1,839

  1,836

  1,848

  1,853

  1,853

  Wales

  863

  879

  890

  890

  892

  790

  798

  806

  807

  810

  Scotland

  1,577

  1,627

  1,648

  1,652

  1,654

  1,490

  1,511

  1,523

  1,529

  1,528

  1 Included in South East.

  Sources: Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and General Register Office (Scotland) for estimates. Government Actuary's Department for projections.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Debt
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table showing the total deductions made from(a) invalidity benefit, (b)

  Amount in £s

  Financial year

  Supplementary benefit

  Child benefit

  Unemployment benefit

  Sickness benefit

  Invalidity benefit

  Retirement benefit

  Widow's benefit

  1978–79

  764,280·45

  11,801·49

  122,419·34

  12,715·25

  132,306·44

  39,759·89

  60,279·09

  1979–80

  1,015,276·95

  62,124·02

  105,634·97

  13,261·44

  182,840·67

  50,894·62

  71,729·47

  1980–81

  1,477,225·14

  70,435·71

  211,779·09

  15,740·65

  256,734·06

  83,339·53

  105,914·09

  1981–82

  263,668·48

  62,794·57

  265,196·95

  9,524·73

  436,747·48

  149,433·14

  155,967·05

  1982–83

  474,264·89

  86,299·35

  367,573·98

  16,694·64

  872,123·58

  379,438·35

  322,442·86

  1983–84

  646,155·59

  92,449·35

  256,869·10

  13,246·89

  1,073,954·86

  535,781·87

  407,457·58

  1984–85

  724,889·61

  73,860·16

  121,855·50

  12,935·62

  1,015,112·09

  442,253·64

  352,402·35

  1985–86

  824,101·13

  77,374·67

  134,636·92

  14,159·11

  110,443·51

  541,369·58

  368,682·17

  Travelling People
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the permanent and temporary legal sites for travelling people in Northern Ireland, giving the services provided, the number of families accommodated on each and the sources of funding in each instance.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the current estimates and projections of the population of working age(a) men aged 16 to 64 years and (b) women aged 16 to 59 years, by standard region including Greater London for 1979, 1983, 1986, 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Lee
  The figures requested are in the following table.

  child benefit, (c) widows' benefit, (d) supplementary benefit, (e) unemployment benefit, (f) sickness benefit and (g) retirement pensions in each year from 1979 to 1986 under the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Mr. Needham
  In respect of permanent and temporary legal sites for travellers, district councils receive grants of 100 per cent. towards the reasonable capital costs from the Department of the Environment.

  There are four permanent legal sites and two temporary legal sites as follows:
  87

  Permanent sites

  Families

  Services

  1. Newry: Albert Basin

  20

  Contract is approaching conpletion to provide full facilities to Design Guide standards.

  2. Coalisland

  16

  Full site Design Guide standards together with an adjacent serviced transit site with communal facilities.

  3. Omagh: Ballinamullan

  4

  Full facilities to Design Guide standards.

  4. Omagh: Tattykeel

  9

  Prefabricated toilets, running water and electricity supply to individual surfaced pitches.

  Temporary sites

  1. Londonderry: Letterkenny Road

  6

  Communal toilet and ablution block, hard-standing, water supply. Plans are in hand for a permanent site for 10 families and this is expected to be completed in 1988.

  2. Londonderry: Labre Park

  Limited communal facilities but site no longer occupied.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration he was given to the work being undertaken by the Northern Ireland Council for Travelling People; and what plans he has on their future level of funding.

  Mr. Needham
  The Northern Ireland Council for Travelling People is a voluntary body which receives financial aid from the Department of Health and Social Services. It is currently negotiating with that Department on future levels of grant.

  The council was represented on the 1984 Department of Environment working party of travelling people. The working party produced recommendations which are the basis of current Department of the Environment policies for travelling people. The council has three representatives on the advisory committee on travellers which advises me on the implementation of traveller policy and takes an active role in promoting that policy.

  Rubbish Dump, Magheramorne
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will rescind his previous decision granting planning permission to Blue Circle and require Blue Circle to readvertise its proposals for Magheramorne quarry so as to make clear its intention to infill the quarry with rubbish.

  Mr. Needham
  Planning permission has not been granted to Blue Circle Industries plc for landfill and reclamation of its former limestone quarry at Magheramorne, Larne.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish his reasons for not agreeing to hold a public inquiry regarding the proposal by Blue Circle to develop a rubbish dump at Magheramorne limestone quarry in East Antrim.

  Mr. Needham
  In view of the representations received from Larne borough council, the Department of the 88
  Environment for Northern Ireland is currently reconsidering whether or not a public inquiry into this proposal should be held.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps will be taken to ensure that poisonous leachate will not travel through cracks in rock into Larne lough or underground fresh water systems if dumping at Magheramorne proceeds.

  Mr. Needham
  The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland is currently considering an application for consent under the Water Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 in connection with a proposal to develop a waste disposal facility at Magheramorne. The determination of such applications is designed to prevent water pollution and consents invariably contain rigorous conditions.

  Alcohol Consumption
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will introduce legislation to prohibit the consumption of alcohol in gardens of remembrance, public parks and on the streets of Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  There are no plans at present to make it an offence for an adult to consume intoxicating liquor in public areas in Northern Ireland. It is already an offence for those under 18 years of age to consume alcohol anywhere other than within private residential premises and for any person to be drunk in any public place or road.

  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table showing the grants made by Departments under his control to voluntary organisations, in each of the last two years, with the amount in each case and the names and addresses of the recipient organisations.

  Mr. Stanley
  The information is as set out. I will write to the hon. Member with the addresses.

  Financial year ended 31 March 1986

  Department of Finance and Personnel

  £

  Refreshment Clubs

  433,738

  Northern Ireland Civil Service Sports Association

  29,000

  Northern Ireland Civil Service Retirement Fellowship

  4,100

  Army Benevolent Fund

  15,000

  Police Benevolent Fund

  55,000

  Ulster Defence Regiment Benevolent Fund

  20,000

  Public Service Training Council

  199,852

  Incorporated Council of Law Reporting

  3,000

  Civil Service Benevolent Fund

  13,000

  Financial year ended 31 March 1986

  Department of Health and Social Services

  £

  Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action

  182,960

  Community Service Volunteers

  6,146

  St. Vincent de Paul Society

  28,080

  Belfast Voluntary Welfare Society

  4,000

  Carafriend

  3,865

  Retirement Association of Northern Ireland

  6,600

  International Voluntary Service

  15,925

  Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (ROSPA)

  28,359

  Northern Ireland Council for Orthopaedic Development

  17,472

  89

  Department of Health and Social Services

  £

  National Deaf Children's Society

  2,517

  Ulster Institute for the Deaf

  6,552

  Age Concern

  74,748

  Abbeyfield Society

  2,250

  Royal Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults

  38,276

  Northern Ireland Association for Mental Health

  84,700

  Northern Ireland Marriage Guidance Council

  35,617

  Northern Ireland Council on Alcohol

  57,950

  British Epilepsy Association (Northern Ireland Region)

  7,040

  Northern Ireland Women's Aid Federation

  32,049

  Northern Ireland Widows Association

  6,513

  Gingerbread

  71,676

  Catholic Marriage Advisory Council

  43,723

  The Northlands Centre

  22,500

  Industrial Therapy Organisation

  25,000

  Life Care and Housing Trust

  9,336

  Outreach Anorexia

  1,000

  Northern Ireland Council for Travelling People

  15,058

  Womens Information Groups

  2,080

  Combat Huntingdon's Chorea

  1,000

  CRUSE in Northern Ireland

  10,920

  Open Door Housing Resettlement Project

  16,863

  Presbyterian Church in Ireland (Board of Social Witness)

  10,650

  Northern Ireland Rape Crisis Association

  4,325

  Workers' Education Association

  3,900

  National Council for Carers and their Elderly Dependants

  520

  Church of Ireland Social and Family Welfare Society

  1,165

  Blind Centre for Northern Ireland

  29,700

  Motability

  17,250

  Multiple Sclerosis Action Group

  13,874

  Soldiers, Sailors and Airmens Families Association (SSAFA)

  730

  Physically Handicapped and Able-Bodied (PHAB)

  12,400

  Family Planning Association (Northern Ireland Region)

  3,500

  Council on Alcohol Related Problems

  22,202

  Crossroads Care Attendant Scheme

  13,867

  Multiple Sclerosis Society (NI) Branch

  3,276

  Ambulance Services

  3,198

  Northern Ireland Council for the Handicapped

  74,500

  National Health Service Retirement Fellowship

  580

  PRAXIS

  22,600

  Disabled Drivers' Association

  1,100

  National Schizophrenia Fellowship

  15,924

  National Rubella Campaign

  800

  Home Insulation Schemes

  73,000

  Belfast Law Centre

  61,264

  Arthritis Care

  1,000

  Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust

  20,000

  British Red Cross Society

  400

  Simon Community Northern Ireland

  5,000

  Northern Ireland Pre-School Playgroups Association

  84,493

  Extern

  59,514

  Parents Advice Centre

  3,892

  Northern Ireland Intermediate Treatment Association

  1,555

  Down and Connor Catholic Family Welfare Society

  58,921

  Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders

  3,616

  Northern Ireland Childminders Association

  5,865

  Dr. Barnardo's

  46,270

  Northern Ireland Foster Care Association

  2,847

  Belfast Voluntary Welfare Society—Home Start Scheme

  5,242

  Community Service Volunteers—Give and Take Scheme

  23,000

  National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children

  41,169

  Newtownabbey Auto Project

  10,750

  Garnerville/Knocknagoney Project

  4,153

  Toy Libraries Association (Playmatters)

  2,000

  Derry Diocesan Child Welfare Society

  6,383

  St. Joseph's Children's Home

  4,222

  90

  Department of Health and Social Services

  £

  BVWS Parent/Child Support Unit

  5,000

  Orana Children's Home

  2,254

  Childhaven Children's Home

  2,250

  Financial Year ended 31 March 1986

  Department of Education

  £

  Arts Council for Northern Ireland

  3,217,500

  Line Hall Library

  45,000

  Northern Ireland Library and Information Services Council

  460

  Forum for Community Work Education

  47,000

  Protestant and Catholic Encounter

  9,700

  Corrymeela

  79,200

  Harmony Community Trust

  29,450

  Irish Council of Churches/Irish Commission for Justice and Peace—Peace Education Programme

  16,080

  Children's Community Relations Holiday Scheme

  101,270

  Churches' Central Committee for Community Work

  25,820

  Citizens Advice Bureaux Headquarters

  111,400

  Voluntary Sports Organisations

  759,600

  Ulster Peoples Colleges

  27,210

  Methodist College Inter-Schools Project

  2,355

  Youth Clubs and Youth Organisations

  1,637,272

  Ulster American Folk Park

  437,000

  Workers Educational Association

  130,267

  Educational Guidance Services for Adults

  36,921

  Retirement Association of Northern Ireland

  3,000

  British Association for the Advancement of Science

  3,345

  Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges

  56,095

  League for the Exchange of Commonwealth Teachers

  7,497

  Council for Education in World Citizenship

  860

  Ulster College of Music

  6,970

  Ulster Society for Irish Historical Studies

  1,340

  Christian Education Movement

  320

  Community of the Peace

  17,900

  Community Relations in Schools—(East Belfast) Project

  22,745

  Federation of Women's Institutes (Northern Ireland)

  1,000

  Children's Project Northern Ireland

  8,970

  Farset Youth & Community Development Ltd.

  8,500

  East Belfast Community Council Carol Service of Reconciliation

  205

  Irish School of Ecumenics

  1,310

  Children's Holiday Scheme Northern Ireland

  8,895

  Financial year ended 31 March 1986

  Department of Agriculture

  £

  Down Royal Corporation of Horse Breeders

  35,000

  Young Farmers Clubs of Ulster

  41,140

  Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents

  125

  Financial year ending 31 March 1986

  Department of Economic Development

  £

  The Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions

  87,200

  Action for Community Employment (funded 1,040 projects in private and voluntary sector organisations)

  14,270,000

  Community Volunteering Scheme (funded 24 voluntary sector organisations)

  635,000

  Youth Community Projects

  637,636

  Community Workshops

  13,356,506

  Youthhelp

  551,468

  Incorporated Cripples Institutes and Holiday Homes

  38,546

  Thomas Doran Training Centre

  279,514

  Glencraig Village Community

  64,376

  Mourne Grange Village Community

  128,411

  Clanabogan Village Community

  19,000

  Royal National Institute for the Blind

  7,009

  University of Ulster (CAD Engineer) R & D Purposes

  15,851

  91

  Department of Economic Development

  £

  National Trust

  106,297

  The Scottish-Irish Trust of Ulster

  79,992

  The Northern Ireland Co-operative Development Agency

  24,622

  Financial year ended 31 March 1986

  Department of the Environment

  £

  British Trust for Ornithology

  3,000

  North Down Ringing Group

  510

  Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

  15,077

  Ulster Trust for Nature Conservation

  16,108

  National Trust

  343,472

  Conservation Volunteers (NI)

  124,954

  Road Safety Council

  75,000

  ROSPA

  39,412

  St. Oliver Plunkett Environmental Committee

  66,063

  Belfast Voluntary Welfare Society

  37,242

  Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations

  80,000

  National Federation of Housing Associations

  200

  Registered Housing Associations

  39,501,813

  Unregistered Housing Associations

  66,329

  Belfast Housing Aid Society

  27,000

  Tenants Participation Advisory Service

  32,000

  Community Technical Aid

  20,000

  Alliance Avenue Community Group

  15,571

  Ligoniel Environmental Association

  12,073

  Ulster Architectural Heritage Society

  26,721

  Charles Shiels Institution

  22,059

  Church of Ireland, Richhill

  5,300

  First Presbyterian Church, Greyabbey

  1,656

  Carlisle Memorial Church

  7,911

  Enniskillen Methodist Church

  3,300

  St. Mary's Dominican Convent

  1,636

  The Select Vestry Desertmartin Rectory

  62

  The Select Vestry Queen Street Rectory, Ballymoney

  3,500

  First Cookstown Church Committee

  1,250

  Kilwarlin Moravian Church

  220

  Newtownards Masonic Hall

  1,680

  Portaferry Masonic Lodge

  3,050

  Ballymoney Masonic Hall

  4,630

  Drapers Charity—The Old Courthouse, Moneymore

  960

  Belfast Central Mission

  318

  Belfast Development Agency

  258,589

  Ulster Provident Housing Association

  82,876

  Northern Ireland Council on Alcohol

  7,200

  Young Men's Christian Association

  12,500

  Ardoyne Industrial Development Limited

  110,560

  Hare Krishna Movement

  7,800

  Divis Playgroup

  2,964

  National Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children

  4,580

  Trustees of the Masonic Hall, Londonderry

  5,546

  Derry Catholic Club

  2,574

  Trustees of the Waterside Community Council

  4,922

  Ebenezer Gospel Hall

  9,600

  Financial year ended 31 March 1987

  Department of Finance and Personnel

  £

  Refreshment Clubs

  430,716

  Northern Ireland Civil Service Sports Association

  30,500

  Northern Ireland Civil Service Retirement Fellowship

  4,100

  Army Benevolent Fund

  15,000

  Police Benevolent Fund

  52,000

  Ulster Defence Regiment Benevolent Fund

  20,000

  Public Service Training Council

  200,474

  Incorporated Council of Law Reporting

  3,000

  Civil Service Benevolent Fund

  20,671

  Royal Ulster Rifles Association Benevolent Fund—Battle of Somme Commemoration

  1,000

  Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action

  15,500

  92

  Financial year ended 31 March 1987

  Department of Health and Social Services

  £

  Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action

  239,465

  Community Service Volunteers

  38,309

  St. Vincent de Paul

  34,640

  Bryson House

  4,000

  Cara-friend

  4,320

  International Voluntary Service

  19,202

  Northern Ireland Marriage Guidance Council

  68,900

  Northern Ireland Family Mediation Service

  1,038

  Northern Ireland Womens Aid Federation

  33,350

  Northern Ireland Council for Travelling People

  19,915

  Gingerbread

  91,570

  Church of Ireland Social and Family Welfare Association

  1,200

  Northern Ireland Widows Association

  10,500

  Womens Information Group

  2,143

  Open Door Housing Association (Resettlement Project)

  21,510

  Life Care and Housing Trust

  10,450

  Catholic Marriage Advisory Council

  50,520

  Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen's Families Association (SSAFA)

  752

  Retirement Association of Northern Ireland

  4,890

  Northern Ireland Council on Alcohol

  66,426

  Social Witness Board of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland

  27,775

  Abbeyfield Society

  2,320

  Belfast Law Centre

  103,000

  Cruse-in-Northern Ireland

  14,250

  Age Concern

  86,990

  Northern Ireland Hospice

  17,000

  National Council for Carers and their Elderly Dependants

  400

  National Health Service Retirement Fellowship

  600

  Northern Ireland Rape Crisis Association

  17,928

  Northern Ireland Council for Orthopaedic Development

  127,996

  British Red Cross

  131

  Council on Alcohol Related Problems

  22,868

  Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (ROSPA)

  29,210

  Family Planning Association (Northern Ireland Region)

  4,760

  Northern Ireland Association for Mental Health

  165,290

  National Rubella Campaign

  900

  National Deaf Children's Society

  2,593

  Belfast Unemployed Centre

  6,000

  Outreach Anorexia

  2,900

  Emergency Ambulances

  13,300

  Beaconfield

  6,000

  Simon Community (Northern Ireland)

  17,463

  Ulster Institute for the Deaf

  9,249

  National Schizophrenia Fellowship

  19,000

  Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust

  150,000

  Women's Forum

  250

  Praxis

  23,980

  AIDS Helpline

  6,700

  British Epilepsy Association

  6,427

  Women's Education Project

  1,500

  Council for the Single Homeless

  2,125

  Blind Centre for Northern Ireland

  13,845

  Workers Education Association

  1,500

  Royal Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults

  62,168

  Motability

  20,588

  Multiple Sclerosis Action Group

  14,290

  Rural Action Project (Northern Ireland)

  23,176

  Northern Ireland Council on Disability

  174,000

  Industrial Therapy Organisation

  26,000

  Extern

  2,000

  Association of Carers

  572

  Arthritis Care

  1,030

  Disabled Drivers' Association

  1,133

  Multiple Sclerosis Society

  3,374

  Northern Ireland Workshops with the Deaf

  1,000

  93

  Department of Health and Social Services

  £

  Northlands Centre

  87,200

  Crossroads Care Attendant Scheme

  12,540

  SHARE

  2,981

  Council for Advancement of Communication with Deaf People

  35,000

  Home Insulation Schemes

  54,900

  Northern Ireland Pre-School Playgroup Association

  92,700

  North/South Child Welfare Conference

  1,500

  Parents Advice Centre

  4,718

  Northern Ireland Intermediate Treatment Association

  3,670

  Down and Connor Catholic Family Welfare Society

  101,547

  Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders

  3,795

  Northern Ireland Childminders Association

  3,950

  Glebe House

  2,435

  Northern Ireland Foster Care Association

  4,640

  West Belfast Parent Youth Support Group

  48,000

  Childline—Helpline

  1,350

  National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children

  11,210

  Newtownabbey Auto Project

  25,000

  Garnerville/Knocknagoney Project

  5,000

  Toy Libraries Association (Playmatters)

  2,100

  Derry Diocesan Child Welfare Society

  25,219

  Child Care (NI) Formerly known as NCVCCO

  3,250

  Extern

  22,700

  Lower Falls New Start Project

  20,000

  Suffolk Adventure Group

  20,000

  Lagan Valley Auto Project

  20,000

  St. Joseph's Children's Home

  3,040

  Corrymeela Community

  10,000

  Orana Children's Home

  14,230

  Childhaven Children's Home

  1,605

  Marianville

  4,470

  Financial year ended 31 March 1987

  Department of Education

  £

  Arts Council for Northern Ireland

  3,284,200

  Linen Hall Library

  46,000

  Northern Ireland Library and Information Services Council

  1,015

  Forum for Community Work Education

  53,000

  Protestant and Catholic Encounter

  12,700

  Corrymeela

  78,287

  Harmony Community Trust

  21,634

  Irish Council of Churches—Irish Commission for Justice and Peace—Peace Education Programme

  19,250

  Children's Community Relations Holiday Scheme

  124,169

  Churches Central Committee for Community Work

  23,750

  Northern Ireland Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux

  136,160

  Voluntary Sports Organisations

  348,156

  Ulster People's College

  22,856

  Methodist College Inter-Schools Project

  2,475

  Youth Clubs and Youth Organisations

  1,819,796

  Ulster American Folk Park

  402,000

  Workers' Educational Association

  123,500

  Educational Guidance Service for Adults

  47,930

  Retirement Association of Northern Ireland

  3,000

  League for Exchange of Commonwealth Teachers

  11,160

  Council for Education in World Citizenship

  890

  Ulster College of Music

  6,813

  Ulster Society for Irish Historical Studies

  2,380

  Christian Education Movement

  700

  Community of the Peace People

  19,000

  Community Relations in Schools—(East Belfast Project)

  13,465

  Federation of Women's Institutes (Northern Ireland)

  1,000

  East Belfast Community Council Carol Service of Reconciliation

  182

  Irish School of Ecumenics

  1,582

  Social Study Conference

  2,000

  All Children Together

  3,375

  Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust

  50,000

  94

  Financial Year ended 31 March 1987

  Department of Agriculture

  £

  Down Royal Corporation of Horse Breeders

  6,712

  Young Farmers Clubs of Ulster

  42,910

  Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents

  125

  Financial Year ended 31 March 1987

  Department of Economic Development

  £

  Northern Ireland Committee/Irish Congress of Trade Unions

  96,700

  Community Workshops

  15,599,832

  Incorporated Cripples Institutes and Holiday Homes

  23,356

  Thomas Doran Training Centre

  251,230

  Mourne Grange Village Community

  206,490

  Glencraig Village Community

  90,337

  Clanabogan Village Community

  34,253

  Scottish Irish Trust of Ulster

  12,637

  National Trust

  178,144

  Northern Ireland Co-operative Development Agency

  50,000

  "Industry Matters" (A follow on from Industry Year)

  20,000

  540 Voluntary Bodies (ACE Scheme)

  28,489,008

  20 Voluntary Bodies (Community Volunteering Scheme)

  654,718

  Youth Community Projects

  746,191

  Young Help

  712,303

  Royal National Institute for the Blind

  8,148

  Financial Year ended 31 March 1987

  Department of the Environment

  £

  Northern Ireland Council on Disability

  26,000

  ROSPA

  43,092

  Road Safety Council

  79,000

  Belfast Voluntary Welfare Service

  73,921

  Conservation Volunteers

  131,996

  Ulster Trust for Nature Conservation

  29,463

  St. Oliver Plunkett Environmental Committee

  6,638

  Glenbryn/Alliance Community

  10,038

  Connswater River Environmental Committee

  10,881

  Farset City Farm

  2,681

  National Trust

  445,273

  Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

  18,947

  British Trust for Ornithology

  5,000

  Copeland Bird Observatory

  1,250

  Antrim Ringing Group

  175

  British Association for Shooting and Conservation

  1,500

  Northern Ireland Bat Group

  718

  Ulster Architectural Heritage Society

  18,026

  Charles Shiels Institute

  5,000

  Quinn Charity, Newry

  6,000

  YMCA

  1,000

  Ardoyne Industrial Development Limited

  105,711

  Belfast Development Agency

  312,752

  Corrymeela Community

  12,643

  Northern Ireland Council on Alcohol

  4,400

  Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations

  83,500

  National Federation of Housing Associations

  200

  Unregistered Housing Associations

  94,536

  Belfast Housing Aid Society

  35,000

  Tenants Participation Advisory Service

  49,000

  Community Technical Aid

  22,283

  Registered Housing Associations

  41,161,889

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what notice was given to Her Majesty's Government of the visit of a Minister from the Government of the Irish Republic to a school and British Army post outside Newry on 8 February; and if he will make a protest to the Government of the Irish Republic about this incident.
  95
  Mr. Tom King
  We were told the previous day that he would be visiting the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon).

  Gas Connections
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the rate of charge to new Housing Executive tenants by the Department of Health and Social Security for gas connections in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Needham
  No such charge is levied by the Department nor is assistance available under the supplementary benefit scheme towards any gas connection charges which might be imposed by anybody.

  Training Centres
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many places there have been in adult training centres for mentally handicapped people in Northern Ireland in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Viggers
  No places are made available specifically for mentally handicapped people in training centres. However, disabled persons, including the mentally handicapped, who are capable of undertaking training can participate in the range of courses available to everybody in these centres.

  Farm Incomes
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he will take to reverse rapidly falling farm incomes and fight unfair European competition, especially in the pig industry.

  Mr. Viggers
  Apart from the weather-affected years of 1985 and 1986, farming income in Northern Ireland has been relatively high during the 1980s. Preliminary information indicates that, after allowing for inflation, the average income per holding in 1987 was at its second highest level since 1978. This has been helped by strengthening of sterling and changes in the green pound secured by the Government over the past year so that monetary compensatory amounts are some 14 to 17 points lower than a year ago. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made clear his recognition of the difficulties facing the United Kingdom pig industry. He has indicated his support for the European Commission's objective of removal of monetary compensatory amounts by 1992 but that this should be accomplished without further escalation of the cost of the common agricultural policy.

  Students
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what figures are available to indicate the number of students aged 16 years or over in respect of whom child benefit was paid in each of the past five years in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 12 February 1988]: The information is available only as at 31 December in each year:
  96

  Number

  31 December 1982

  40,002

  31 December 1983

  40,390

  31 December 1984

  40,022

  31 December 1985

  39,714

  31 December 1986

  40,250

  Cloghogue Primary School
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the status of the visit to Cloghogue primary school near Newry on Monday 8 February by Mr. Wilson, the Minister for Tourism and Transport in the Republic of Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tom King
  [holding answer 12 February 1988]: We were informed in advance of the visit of Mr. Wilson and that he would be seeing the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). On the understanding that it would be a private visit, I made clear that he would of course be welcome.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his policy towards the criticism of the Army security presence at Cloghogue primary school which was publicly expressed by Mr. Wilson, a Minister from the Republic of Ireland, on Monday 8 February.

  Mr. Tom King
  [holding answer 12 February 1988]: Mr. Wilson was on a private visit to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). The hon. Gentleman had already raised with me his concern about the location of the permanent vehicle check point, which was the one recommended by Newry and Mourne council.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement explaining the method used to determine the allocation of social fund budgets to each social security office in Northern Ireland, giving examples of how the formula was applied to given offices.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 15 February 1988]: An explanation of the basis of the allocations, together with an example for one office falling within the hon. Gentlemen's constituency, has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement indicating the factors used in determining the contingency reserve in the social fund budget and explaining the conditions of its use.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 15 February 1988]: The contingency reserve was set at approximately 1 per cent. of the gross budget, as for the rest of the United Kingdom. It will be used where a social security office budget needs to be increased to cope with exceptional demand resulting, for example, from a major local emergency.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement indicating the social fund budget allocation consequences for future years(a) if a social security office's allocation runs out and (b) if it is not used up.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 15 February 1988]: The arrangements for controlling social fund expenditure are

  97
  designed to ensure that social security offices will not overspend during the year. The aim will be for payments to approach the budget for the year as closely as possible without exceeding it. If an allocation is not fully spent, the surplus will be carried over to the social fund for the following year.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement outlining what means will be used to monitor social fund expenditure by social security offices; and what means will be used to influence the pattern of that expenditure if monitoring suggests that there are discrepancies.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 15 February 1988]: Social security offices will monitor their expenditure against a monthly profile for loans and grants which will take into account any particular foreseeable local factors. In the light of actual expenditure, it may be necessary from time to time for offices to adjust their plans by spreading any deficit or excess over the remaining months of the year.

  Housing Associations
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his Department's tendering policy for contracts for work under the various voluntary housing associations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 15 February 1988]: For schemes financed through housing association grant (HAG) the Department normally requires registered housing associations to use a single stage selective tendering procedure as laid down in the code of procedure issued by the National Joint Consultative Committee for Building (NJCC). However, where circumstances justify an alternative approach, other forms of building procurement such as a negotiated contract or design and build package deals may be considered for approval. These latter arrangements are proving useful in enabling associations to secure projects particularly suited to the specialist needs for which they provide.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his departmental policy towards planning applications from voluntary housing associations for developments which subsequently are passed on to private developers; how many applications of this type have been approved in the last three years and how many refused; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 15 February 1988]: Planning applications are considered on their merits and the Department of the Environment (NI) has regard only to the nature of the developments proposed and not to the identity of the applicants. Accordingly, information in the form requested is not available.

  Provisional IRA (Arrests)
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Provisional Irish Republican Army suspects have been arrested and brought into police holding centres in Armagh and Castlereagh within the past two years and subsequently released without charges.

  Mr. Stanley
  [holding answer 15 February 1988]: The total number of persons detained in Northern Ireland under section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism
  98
  (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 during the period 1 January 1986 to 31 December 1987 was 2,768. Of those, 701 were subsequently charged with criminal offences and the remainder were released without charge. The figure for the numbers of those released without charge who are believed to have been members of the Provisional IRA is not readily available.

  Electricity Supplies
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information is available to indicate by district the fitness levels of those houses without electricity supply.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 16 February 1988]: The information is not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  However, the 1984 Northern Ireland house condition survey indicates that 6,905 of the 51,330 unfit houses in the Province did not have an electricity supply.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what financial assistance is available to households seeking an electricity supply; and if he will indicate the total amounts of such assistance, by district, in the past five years.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 16 February 1988]: Assistance is available from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive through the house renovation grants scheme which it operates under the Housing (NI) Order 1983. The normal rate of grant is 75 per cent. of the approved expenditure, though a rate of 90 per cent. is available if the applicant is in financial hardship.

  I understand from the chairman of the Housing Executive that the executive limits the approved expenditure to £1,020 (10 per cent. of the current maximum eligible expense for renovation grants).

  Details of the assistance directly related to the provision of an electricity supply under the renovation grants scheme over the past five years are not recorded separately and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Dungivien Bypass
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether there is now a start date for the Dungivien bypass; what is the present estimated cost; and what was the original estimated cost.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 16 February 1988]: No start date has been given. The present estimated cost is £2,135.00. The original estimated cost was £1,900,000.

  Fluoridation
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which areas of Northern Ireland have artificially fluoridated water and which areas have naturally fluoridated water supplies; and if he has any plans to increase the number of areas which will receive fluoridated water over the next three years.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 16 February 1988]: Two areas of Northern Ireland have artificially fluoridated water supplies. These are Holywood, County Down and Tandragee, County Armagh. Fluoride occurs naturally in varying amounts in all water supplies in Northern Ireland. Decisions on the introduction of fluoridation schemes will

  99
  be based on proposals from health and social services boards which must first consult district councils and the communities affected by any proposed schemes.

DEFENCE

  Service Personnel (Marksmanship)
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the standard of marksmanship in the forces.

  Mr. Freeman
  The already high standard of marksmanship in the forces is being improved significantly through the introduction of the new SA80 rifle. With SA80 a much higher proportion of soldiers than with the older weapon now achieve Army marksman standard. There is, however, no complacency where this fundamental skill is concerned and the forces continue to strive to raise standards still further through realistic training and rigorous annual tests.

  Nuclear Test Veterans Association
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from the Nuclear Test Veterans Association concerning claims for damages.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department has received numerous letters from members of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association seeking compensation for harm alleged from participation in the nuclear test programme. In addition, my noble Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement met a deputation of hon. and right hon. Members and two officers of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association on Tuesday 16 February.

  Chieftain and Challenger Tanks
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are being taken to update the targeting equipment of the Army's fleet of Chieftain and Challenger tanks.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  A number of enhancements to their main armament and associated fire control and other systems are currently in hand or under consideration for both Chieftain and Challenger. An advanced thermal imaging and observation sight is already being fitted to all Challengers and is now in production for Chieftain. Other improvements under development include a new high pressure gun and ammunition, new gun elevation gearbox and solid state control equipment, and improved computer sighting, and target acquisition systems.

  Executive Responsibility Budgets
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many extra staff are being taken on to operate executive responsibility budgets in armed services(a) training establishments and (b) headquarters; and at what cost.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information requested is not recorded centrally. However, it is estimated that the numbers and costs of the extra staff required to process and interpret the management information associated with executive responsibility budgets in the field of service training are as follows:
  100

  Numbers

  Cost1

  Establishments

  100

  1·5

  Headquarters

  22

  0·4

  1 £ million per year at 1987–88 prices.

  The requirement has been met through the redeployment of staff within existing manpower ceilings and cash limits.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are being taken to reduce the growth in paperwork resulting from executive responsibility budgets in the armed services.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Executive responsibility budgets are a key element in the MOD's response to the Government's financial management initiative and have a major role to play in the promotion of greater efficiency in the management of resources. This necessarily calls for more and better management information.

  Home Service Units
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether home service units are notified of regular soldiers completing their engagements and resident in their recruiting areas.

  Mr. Freeman
  Recruitment into the home service force, which forms part of the Territorial Army, is the responsibility of the territiorial auxiliary and volunteer reserve associations. Associations are informed monthly by the Ministry of Defence of men who have recently left the Regular Army and are residing in their recruitment area. In addition, prior to discharge such soldiers are themselves notified of the opportunities for serving in the Territorial Army, including the home service force.

  Departmental Research Establishments
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are being taken to allow research establishments of his Department to retain income derived from external sources, to defray their costs.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Income generated by research establishments from the use of their facilities by external customers is already credited to their executive responsibility budgets as a receipt. Achieving greater scope for the establishments to deploy their resources on a revenue-earning basis will be one aspect to be looked at in the feasibility study of their development as an agency under the initiative announced by the Prime Minister on 18 February 1988.

  RN Armaments Depots
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to complete his review of the Royal Naval armaments depots at Milford Haven and Trecwn; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The report on the future of RNADs Milford Haven and Trecwn is still being studied by management. When their consideration is complete, a consultative document will be published. No date has been fixed for publication.

  Flying Accidents
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the rate of major accidents per 10,000 flying
  101
  hours in 1987 for (a) British military aircraft as a whole, (b) Royal Air Force fixed-wing aircraft and (c) fast jet aircraft.

  Mr. Freeman
  In 1987, major accident rates per 10,000 flying hours were recorded as follows:

  Number

  All aircraft of the three Services

  0·32

  Royal Air Force fixed wing aircraft

  0·29

  Royal Air Force fast jet aircraft

  0·84

  These figures are in line with the general downward trend in recent years in the rate of major accidents to military aircraft.

  Royal Aircraft Establishment Trials
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the nature and purpose of the Royal Aircraft Establishment trials involving intense electromagnetic radiation in the vicinity of Hafren forest, Llanidloes, Powys, from July to October 1987.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The activities to which I believe the hon. Gentleman is referring were sponsored and conducted by British Aerospace. I understand, however, that they posed no danger to the general public.

  Bullying
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to implement the steps he announced to deal with Army bullying; and which of these will be given priority.

  Mr. Freeman
  A ban on harmful initiation ceremonies has already been issued throughout the Army, and measures to emphasise the man-management responsibilities of officers and NCOs are also being implemented. The other proposals announced — which concentrate largely on the training organisation, and on supervision of soldiers — are currently being developed within the Department for detailed approval by Ministers. This is being taken forward as a matter of urgency, although it will inevitably be some months before the process is complete. I will keep the right hon. Gentleman informed.

  Stingray Torpedo
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the names of those companies which were given subcontract work by Marconi for the underwater systems Stingray torpedo project.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The choice of sub-contractors is a matter for the prime contractor and it is for the prime contractor to provide these details.

  Nuclear Tests (Radiation Victims)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 28 January,Official Report, columns 309–10, what estimate is available to him of the number of deaths during the next 10 years amongst the nuclear test participants examined during the National Radiological Protection Board's inquiry; what steps have been taken and will be taken to monitor the incidence of (a) diseases other than cancer, (b) still births, (c) infertility and (d) genetic handicaps in that group; and if he will make a statement.
  102
  Mr. Sainsbury
  The National Radiological Protection Board report referred to in my answer of 28 January, in column 309, is the only source of information available to me on the expected mortality of participants. Taking account of the ages of the participants, the NRPB has estimated that in the 10 years from 1984
  "about 30 deaths could be expected from leukaemia and multiple myeloma and at least a further 20 cases in the participants and a similar number in the controls, if the men experienced the normal national mortality and cancer registration rates in England and Wales."

  It is also estimated that approximately a 1,000 further deaths in each group will occur
  "from the two diseases most closely related to smoking (lung cancer and chronic obstructive lung disease)".

  In line with the recommendations of the report, it is intended that the information for the 10-year follow-up study will be derived from the same sources as were used for the original study, that is, cancer registrations and mortality statistics, including dates and causes of death, contained in the National Health Service central registers.

  Departmental Houses
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discounts were available to sitting tenants purchasing his Department's houses in Bishopton, Renfrewshire.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The discount available to sitting tenants purchasing surplus MOD houses at Bishopton is 33 per cent. if the period of occupation is less than four years. If the period of occupation is four years or over, the discount is 34 per cent. plus 1 per cent. for each complete year by which that period exceeds four years, but not together exceeding 60 per cent., that is, after 30 complete years' qualifying time.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's houses there are in(a) Renfrew district and (b) Inverclyde district.

  Mr. Freeman
  The MOD owns 23 houses in Renfrew district and two in Inverclyde district.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department's tenants, when allowed to buy their homes, are subject to the same discount policy as council tenants.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  When MOD civilian houses are declared surplus, sitting tenants are normally offered the chance to buy at the same discounts as offered by local authorities to council tenants, that is, up to a maximum of 60 per cent. The maximum discount allowed on surplus married quarters is 30 per cent. in line with the discounted sales scheme operated for service personnel. This is a scheme between employer and employee and not directly comparable with that operated, by local authorities.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discounts are available to tenants of his Department's houses when they want to purchase(a) private designation and (b) local authority designation homes.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

  4-tonne Trucks
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to place an order for 4-tonne trucks for the Army.
  103
  Mr. Sainsbury
  A competition is currently in hand to select the services' new 4-tonne vehicle for the 1990s with a view to first production orders being placed in mid 1989. The question of any further orders of the services' existing 4-tonne vehicles is under active consideration.

  Army Establishments (Services)
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent deficiencies in privatised gardening, cleaning and catering work at Army establishments are made good by service personnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There are currently around 200 catering, cleaning and gardening contracts running at Army establishments and a further 16 let but yet to start. Contractors have taken on work previously performed by around 140 military and 4,900 civilian staff. Contracts are monitored continuously and the great majority run satisfactorily. There have been a few instances where Army personnel have been called upon to make up for recruitment difficulties being experienced by contractors but such occurrences have been very infrequent and are generally confined to the early stages of contracts.

  Breathalysers
  Sir Ian Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether, in the light of the experience with their installation and use by the Australian armed forces, he will arrange for the installation of wall-mounted breathalysers in all service premises in which alcohol is sold for consumption by service personnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  No consideration is being given to the installation of breathalysers in service premises.

  Health Board of Testing Laboratory

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Argyll and Clyde

  25,990

  23,829

  27,151

  28,946

  35,195

  33,554

  Ayrshire and Arran

  19,753

  18,497

  21,218

  22,827

  29,219

  30,098

  Borders

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  11,653

  11,710

  12,235

  12,164

  13,661

  14,331

  Fife

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Forth Valley

  14,002

  12,784

  15,074

  15,925

  19,509

  19,353

  Grampian

  33,014

  32,726

  35,164

  37,783

  43,539

  45,077

  Greater Glasgow

  53,143

  49,752

  54,276

  51,916

  59,990

  56,068

  Highland

  16,656

  17,094

  19,174

  18,671

  21,577

  21,016

  Lanarkshire

  25,766

  25,949

  28,423

  27,274

  34,250

  33,966

  Lothian

  65,070

  64,408

  70,713

  74,668

  63,272

  72,122

  Orkney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tayside

  28,823

  28,356

  31,616

  32,310

  36,535

  36,041

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scotland

  293,870

  285,105

  315,044

  322,484

  356,747

  361,626

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps have been taken to ensure that where a cervical smear test is found to be positive the woman concerned is informed immediately.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Following my announcement on 10 December 1987 that a comprehensive cervical cancer screening service was to be made available to all women

  Royal Yacht Britannia
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give his latest estimate of the cost of refitting the royal yacht Britannia.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) on 3 November 1987, at column 651. Subject to final negotiation, the cost of refitting HMY Britannia is not expected to exceed £19 million.

SCOTLAND

  Amniocentesis Tests
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many women had amniocentesis tests in each of the last five years; what was the average time between the test and the results being made available, stating the information for each health board area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I regret that the information requested is not held centrally.

  Cervical Smear Tests
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to the number of women who had cervical smear tests in each year between 1981 and 1987 and the average time between the time of testing and the time of result and made available in each year, showing the information for each health board area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The numbers of women who had cervical smear tests are set out in the table. Data for 1987 are not yet available. The figures relate to the health board in which the examining laboratories are located, which is not necessarily the health board in which the cervical smears were taken. Information on the time taken to notify results of tests is not centrally available.

  in Scotland aged between 20 and 60, detailed guidance was issued to health boards on the provision of such a service including the need to insitute "fail-safe" arrangements to ensure that a woman with a positive result is followed up.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to the number of cases where there was either a failure to inform on an undue delay in
  105
  informing the woman concerned of a positive cervical smear test in the Lothian health board area between 1984 and 1987.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not held centrally.

  Libraries (Incentive Scheme)
  Mr. Buchan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the public library development incentive scheme as it applies to Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have no plans to introduce a scheme of incentive funding for libraries in Scotland similar to that announced recently for England. I shall, however, be following with interest the progress of the scheme in England.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to be in a position to provide a definition of permanency of residence in relation to the poll tax in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  A person's sole or main residence will generally be a matter of fact in relation to the circumstances of each case. The only exception relates to persons undertaking a full-time course of education who are to be regarded, under section 8(4) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, as being solely or mainly resident in the area of the local authority in which they are resident during term time for the purpose of undertaking the course. There is no question of my right hon. and learned Friend providing a definition of sole or main residence for community charge purposes.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of the cost to local authorities of new computers for implementing the poll tax.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is not held centrally. Additional capital allocations of £15 million will, however, be made available to local authorities in respect of 1988–89 to meet expenditure incurred in implementing the community charge. This is on top of the additional £6 million capital expenditure consent already allocated in 1987–88.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest estimate of additional staff required by Scottish local authorities to implement the poll tax.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is not held centrally. It is for individual local authorities to consider the manpower implications of the plans for their own areas.

  Domestic Assaults
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to which police forces in Scotland produce separate figures on the number of reported domestic assaults each year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have no information on the extent to which statistics such as these, which are not collected centrally, are compiled by individual police forces.

  Orthopaedic Consultants (Ayrshire and Arran)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many elective operations major and minor, were carried out in each year since 1980 by each orthopaedic consultant employed by the Ayrshire and Arran health board.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Operating Theatres (Ayrshire and Arran)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many operating theatres there are in the Ayrshire and Arran health board area; what was the number of operations carried out in each during each of the past three years; and the percentage utilisation in terms of hours for each theatre.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is not available centrally.

  Orthopaedic Consultants (Highland Health Board)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of elective operations, major and minor carried out for each year since 1980, by each orthopaedic consultant employed by the Highland health board.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Operating Theatres (Raigmore Hospital)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of operating theatres at Raigmore hospital of the Highland health authority, the number of operations done in each, for the last three years for which figures are available and the percentage utilisation in terms of hours for each theatre.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is not available centrally.

  Pupil-Teacher Ratios (Perthshire)
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of pupil-to-teacher ratio in the schools in Perthshire in the years 1978, 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on schools in Perthshire can be obtained from Tayside regional council.

  Pupil-Teacher Ratios (Angus)
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of pupil-to-teacher ratios in the schools in Angus in the years 1978, 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on schools in Angus can be obtained from Tayside regional council.

  Catering and Domestic Service Contractors
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the answer of 19 January,Official Report, column 664, if he will list the names of each trade association for catering and domestic service contractors and the names of the individuals representing them, at the meeting of 2 October 1987.
  107
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The British Hotels, Restaurants and Caterers Association was represented by Mr. T. Brannigan, Mr. E. Wilkinson, Mr. C. Bone, Mr. R. Dyson and Mr. J. Kilpatrick; the Contract Cleaning and Maintenance Association by Mr. J. Hall, Mr. M. Davies and Mr. A. Tucker.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the answer of 19 January,Official Report, column 664, whether any informal minute or record was made by any individual at, or subsequent to, the meeting of 2 October 1987, which related to that meeting.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Yes; an informal report on the seminar was prepared for my information.

  Johnstone Infectious Diseases Hospital, Renfrewshire
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of the original contract to build the new purpose-built block at Johnstone infectious diseases hospital in Renfrewshire; and what is the new cost for the revised plan.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The cost of the original contract to provide a support services block at the hospital was £990,882. The cost of the revised contract, including the new provision of a recreational area for patients, is still subject to negotiation, but the board is confident that it will be less than the cost of the original contract.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the cost implications to the responsible health board of halting the planned kitchen at Johnstone infectious diseases hospital, Renfrewshire.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Argyll and Clyde health board anticipates that there will be an overall saving on the contract. In addition, the future cost of providing recreational facilities for patients at Johnstone hospital will now be avoided.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland why the electricity and gas supplies for the now cancelled kitchen block at the Johnstone infectious diseases hospital, Renfrewshire, are still going ahead; and at what cost.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The change of use of part of the block from kitchen to recreational facilities does not affect the requirement to supply the block with electrical power or to introduce a gas supply which will fuel the heating system.

  The provisional total is £14,540, which is already included in the contract price.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what compensation is to be paid to the contractor following cancellation of the building of the kitchen at Johnstone infectious diseases hospital, Renfrewshire.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Johnstone hospital provides facilities for the elderly and the young physically disabled. No compensation is to be paid to the contractor following the cancellation of the fitting out of the kitchen at the hospital.

  Grampian Health Board (Correspondence)
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make available to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North copies of correspondence between
  108
  Grampian health board and the Scottish Home and Health Department which relate to discussions and negotiations culminating in the signing on 3 November 1987 of the efficiency savings schedule of agreements by Mr. H. Fullerton for Grampian health board and by Mr. A. McKechnie and Mr. H. McGrath for the staff side, joint staff consultative committee.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Correspondence between the Department and health boards is not normally made available to other parties.

  On 22 June the Scottish Home and Health Department wrote to Grampian health board asking for details of a new bonus scheme which it understood had apparently been introduced by the board for certain ancillary staff. The board replied on 14 October confirming that a new flat-rate bonus scheme for domestic, catering, portering, linen and laundry, hairdressing and gardening staff had been introduced to replace a number of existing ancillary staff bonus schemes. The letter dealt solely with the content of the scheme and the fact that staff representatives had been involved in its preparation and introduction.

  Northumberland Natural Park
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the answer of 15 February,Official Report column 482, what acreage of the Northumberland natural park was afforested with conifers in 1958, 1960 and 1965.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows:

  Year (at 31 March)

  Area of productive coniferous woodland (hectares)

  1958

  11,000

  1960

  12,000

  1965

  15,000

  NHS Staff (Telephone Fault Repair System)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether all Health Service staff required to be on emergency call are registered for British Telecom's priority fault repair system; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will take steps to ensure that after April health boards will continue to pay the cost for employees on British Telecom's priority fault repair system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  British Telecom is in the process of changing the arrangements for the operation and funding of emergency repairs to telephones at NHS premises and at the homes of key personnel. The Scottish Home and Health Department is consulting interested parties, including health boards and professional associations, about the arrangements to be made. The Department aims to identify arrangements which represent good value for public money, do not conflict with the terms of service of the key personnel concerned and, above all, are effective.

  Scottish Special Housing Association
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give the capital programme for the Scottish
  109
  Special Housing Association for each of the last five years, showing the proportion in real and percentage terms financed from capital receipts and from borrowing;

  (2) if he will give the projected capital programme for the Scottish Special Housing Association for each of the next five years, showing the proportion in real and percentage terms to be financed from projected capital receipts and from borrowing;

  (3) if he will give the capital receipts from house sales for each of the last five years for the Scottish Special Housing Association.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As the Scottish Special Housing Association's capital allocation is determine

  Capital Programme Expenditure and Capital Sales Receipts

  Capital programme expenditure

  Capital programme expenditure

  Capital receipts from house sales

  Capital receipts from house sales as a percentage of capital programme expenditure

  (cash price) £ million

  (1986–87 prices) £ million

  (cash price) £ million

  (cash price) Percentage

  1982–83

  59·9

  71·6

  19·2

  32·0

  1983–84

  52·3

  59·7

  30·1

  57·6

  1984–85

  65·0

  71·1

  35·0

  53·8

  1985–86

  50·7

  52·3

  24·9

  49·1

  1986–87

  54·0

  54·0

  23·0

  42·6

  1987–88

  64·7

  n.a.

  39·9

  61·7

  1988–89

  54·9

  n.a.

  40·3

  73·4

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list each of the sums borrowed by the Scottish Special Housing Association in 1987 to finance its capital programmes, showing in each case the terms and from whom borrowed.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is shown in the table. All the association's borrowings are from the National Loans Fund.

  Sums borrowed by the SSHA from the National Loans Fund in 1987–88 (to 19 February 1988)

  Date of advance

  Amount of loan

  Term

  Interest Rate Per cent.

  £ million

  2 April 1987

  6·0

  60 years

  9·125

  30 June 1987

  4·2

  60 years

  9·250

  30 June 1987

  11·8

  30 years

  9·250

  30 June 1987

  16·0

  183 days

  9·250

  31 December 1987

  16·0

  60 years

  9·750

  Sheep Monitoring
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many scintillators were available to, and used by, his Department for the monitoring of live sheep in the restricted areas of Scotland in each month from May 1986 to May 1987.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The figures are as follows:

  Number

  1986

  May

  Nil

  June

  Nil

  July

  1

  August

  1

  September

  1

  110
  annually within the normal arrangements for public expenditure, programme figures are not available for any years after 1988–89. It is not possible to distinguish between the sums from capital receipts and borrowings from the National Loans Fund to meet capital expenditure for any financial year.

  The table shows capital programme expenditure at cash prices and at 1986–87 prices for the five years up to 1986–87; it also gives capital receipts for house sales at cash prices and expressed as a percentage of capital programme expenditure for the same five years; estimated outturn figures for 1987–88 and 1988–89 have been included as appropriate.

  Number

  October

  4

  November

  6

  December

  6

  1987

  January

  8

  February

  8

  March

  8

  April

  8

  May

  8

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when monitoring of live sheep on a general basis was introduced in the restricted areas of Scotland following the Chernobyl accident.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  July 1986.

  Nurses
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to recruit and retain nurses within the National Health Service in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) of 27 October 1987, at column 104.

  In the intervening period, the Nursing and Midwifery Staffs Negotiating Council has agreed a new grading structure which recognises specific skills and will enable nurses to progress in their careers without necessarily having to move into management, will recognise post-basic clinical skills and training at all levels and provide a response to shortages in key specialisms. The Nurses' Pay Review Body has been asked to make recommendations on salaries in the new structure as part of its annual report on pay.
  111
  In addition, the launch of a joint Nursing Times/ Scottish Home and Health Department campaign on nurse recruitment and retention will take place on Monday 28 March 1988 in Edinburgh.

  Geese
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what weight is given to the number of geese grazing on land when determining whether a licence to shoot should be granted; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what criteria he applies in determining the density or numbers of geese that are deemed to be causing significant damage for the purpose of granting a licence to shoot.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Licences are granted only where white-fronted geese are regularly causing damage in concentrations of more than 200 birds on restricted areas of land carrying crops or improved grass.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what step he has taken to satisfy himself that the licensed shooting of white-fronted geese on Islay has not caused nor is likely to cause any disturbance to the wild birds in the proposed special protection area known as the Rhins.
  112
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No licences have been issued in respect of land lying within any of the SSSIs including the Rhins. Licensed shooting outwith the SSSIs would not be expected to disturb birds within the protected areas.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to procure manpower for the purpose of scaring white-fronted geese from farmland on Islay.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A scheme for the scaring of geese on farmland lying outwith the protected areas has already been introduced with support from the Manpower Services Commission for the employment of scarers.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many licence applications he has now received to shoot white-fronted geese; how many licences have been granted to date; and if he has received advice from the Nature Conservancy Council in respect of each licence application.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Twenty eight applications for licences to shoot white-fronted geese have been received and 10 have been granted. The Nature Conservancy Council was informed in advance of each of the licences to be issued.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Truro.

AIDS: London Lighthouse Centre
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assistance they intend to provide to the London Lighthouse centre which provides help and hospice care to people suffering from AIDS.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, the Government have approved two capital grants to London Lighthouse, totalling £1.25 million. We have also given a £100,000 grant towards running costs this year. We are considering with Lighthouse and the four Thames regional health authorities the revenue funding requirements for the coming financial year.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that rather satisfactory Answer, perhaps I may ask him to tell the House whether most of the existing hospices are prepared to treat patients suffering from AIDS.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we have no information that hospices are not prepared to provide resting places for people suffering from AIDS. However, hospices are not the only places where people are likely to die. For example, I understand only 9 per cent. of cancer patients die in hospices.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, is it not the case that the last and final stages of AIDS make it rather difficult for AIDS patients to be treated in normal hospices? Are the Government thinking about the likely increase of patients and the further support which will be needed for this type of initiative?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, but, as I have just said, not necessarily within the context of hospices. We have no intention of establishing dedicated AIDS hospice provision through the voluntary bodies.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, while I warmly welcome the support announced by the Minister for Lighthouse and the point just raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, perhaps I may ask whether there is any form of government support for those who, for the reasons stated by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, are more likely to have their last weeks and months at home rather than in a hospice. The noble Lord will remember that I tried to do
930
something about that in the Social Security Bill. I wonder whether the Government have some thought of help which could be given to those people during their last sad weks.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there is no system of formal support along the lines the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has mentioned. However, we give large amounts of extra money to the health services in order to carry out that support which is necessary.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the hospice for AIDS at Mildmay Mission Hospital will be taking its first patients tomorrow? Would he let the House know who will be paying for their contractual beds?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I was aware that Mildmay Mission Hospital was taking its first patients tomorrow. As regards funding, all the hospice movement is operated on revenue financed by contributions both from ordinary people through voluntary donations and also through the good auspices of the health authorities.

Electricity Industry: Privatisation
2.39 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they expect to announce their plans for the future of the electricity supply industry and whether they intend to publish a Green Paper.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government will announce their plans for privatisation of the electricity supply industry in due course. There are no plans to publish a Green Paper on the subject.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I wish I could thank my noble friend for that Answer. I regret the absence of a Green Paper; one would seem appropriate in the circumstances. Does the Minister agree that the proposals, when they come, will be measured against their likely effect upon security of supply, safety and prices? Does he not agree that in this instance competition may be even more difficult to attain than in the case of telephones and gas?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, as I am well aware of the view of my noble friend on this subject, I did not expect him to welcome my reply with wild enthusiasm. However, I should tell him that Green Papers have not been issued in connection with previous privatisations. In reply to his last question, I can assure him that all these matters are being considered.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, will the noble Viscount ensure that no price increases take place before the privatisation of the electricity industry?
Viscount Davidson: No, my Lords. A Statement was made in another place and I repeated it here—I think it was in October—about the increase in electricity prices which would take place in April and which has nothing to do with privatisation.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether, when the announcement is made, the announcement for Scotland will be made at the same time? The Central Electricity Generating Board and the distribution boards do not operate there.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot tell the noble Lord that.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, bearing in mind the number of views and opinions expressed by various components of the community who will be affected in one way or another by these proposals, does the Minister not think they would be better received if a Green Paper were issued to give people a chance to express their views in a constructive manner? A decision taken on a purely politically philosophical basis may be the wrong way of doing it and may result in very adverse effects on the supply to the community as a whole.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not agree with that at all. I can only report that no Green Papers have been issued in connection with previous privatisations. However, I understand that a White Paper will be issued in due course.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the integrated electricity supply industry in this country is the envy of the world? Since it was formed in 1949 it has ensured that virtually everyone in this country enjoys a mains electricity supply. What is more, the electricity supply industry has given the country security of supply at—when the Government do not interfere—very reasonable prices. Why is it that the Government feel obliged, for philosophical reasons and no doubt because they want to add to the already brimful, overflowing Treasury, to upset the industry in this way?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would like to study the Question on the Order Paper. He will then see that his supplementary question is way wide of the main Question.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree, as has been stated, that there may be little possibility of genuine competition, that if we move too swiftly there may be very serious deleterious effects on a great industry and that the repercussions could affect almost all of British industry? Therefore should not the Government, for purely doctrinaire reasons, take great care in what they do with this country's electricity industry?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I note what the noble Lord says.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, although the Minister indicated that there had been no Green Papers issued
932
in connection with other privatisation measures, nevertheless there have been discussion documents, for example in the case of the water industry. Therefore does he agree that in view of the very great public interest in this matter, some of which may or may not be well informed, it would be useful in advance of a final government announcement to have a discussion document so as to focus debate on the essential issues?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, having said that I do not think so, I must say that I still do not think so.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will my noble friend be good enough to convey to his right honourable friend that there are considerable fears that there may be hazards in meddling with the present integrated system which has worked well and at times under great pressure, particularly when the benefits from doing so are not all that obvious?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, all changes can involve hazards. I suggest that my noble friend should wait until he sees the White Paper before making up his mind so definitely.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, would it make the slightest difference on this issue whatever question we ask the Minister?.
Viscount Davidson: Not at the moment, my Lords.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Minister has not answered the Question that his noble friend asked him. The Government have been quite prepared to discuss at great length with the moguls of the electricity industry how it will be privatised. Why do they not consult the owners of the industry—that is us?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I really do take exception to the noble Lord saying that I did not answer the Question of my noble friend. He asked me when the Government expected to announce their plans for the future of the electricity supply industry. I answered, "in due course". My noble friend also asked me whether the Government intended to publish a Green Paper; I replied, no.
Lord Morris: My Lords, how do her Majesty's Government plan to avoid the problem that they had with the privatisation of British Telecom, in that the flotation was in direct conflict with the reason for the privatisation, namely to set up a competitive environment? In other words, I am suggesting that the flotation was in direct conflict with that aim.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I would advise my noble friend to await the publication of the White Paper.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, is not the Minister aware of the fact that our supplies of electricity seem very satisfactory at present? Would it not be more to the credit of the Government if instead of messing about with electricity they brought down the numbers of unemployed?
Visount Davidson: My Lords, I think that that is outside the scope of the original Question.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, does the Minister realise that many Members of the House will be interested in whether he can answer the second supplementary question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil? That Question was, if I remember rightly, whether the Minister would be good enough to convey to the Secretary of State the objections which have been raised in many quarters in the House about the lack of a consultation document.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I apologise if I did not reply to my noble friend. I shall of course do so.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, when I questioned the Minister I asked him whether the Government could do anything to bring down the number of unemployed. He did not mention that in his comments. Is that because the number is so big that the Government can hardly visualise it?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am sorry to say that the original Question is about electricity and not about the unemployed.

Holiday Trips Abroad
2.48 p.m.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the latest available figures of the number of foreign holidays taken by Britons.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, in the 12 months up to June 1987 UK residents made 19 million holiday trips abroad.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that impressive figure. Has his attention been drawn to today's edition of the Sun, not page 3 but page 21, which has an article about the worries of British tourists under the heading "Worriers' Hell on Hols" and a similar article in today's edition of the Daily Mail, this time on page 3, entitled: "We are just too worried to have fun on holiday"? Has he any information that might relieve the anxieties of British tourists going on holiday this year?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Sun article to which my noble friend has drawn my attention refers to "sun, sea and sex". According to which of those is worrying him I shall be happy to help my noble friend.
Lord Peston: My Lords, bearing in mind that some of us thought that the point of this Question was to throw light on the financing of the National Health Service, will the noble Lord tell us whether he regards himself as the right Minister to answer the Question in the first place?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, Questions are answered from this Dispatch Box by government spokesmen.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is there a possibility that such holidays will be reduced due to the utterances of a certain government Minister who said that people should give up holidays and go in for private health insurance?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not remember the statement to which the noble Lord is referring. However, the fact is that the number of holidays being taken abroad by British residents is steadily increasing.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether, in view of the figures he has quoted, the Government are satisfied with the level of consumer protection, particulary at the lower end of the package-tour industry and particularly in view of the intensive competition that exists.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as the noble Baroness will be aware, that aspect has been a matter for concern for a number of years. However, I am also aware that a number of arrangements have been put in place over the same period. I do not believe that the difficulties have entirely disappeared. However, the situation is better than it once was.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, was the figure which the Minister gave in his Answer to the Question for the number of holidays abroad or for the number of visits abroad?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the figure was for the number of holidays trips abroad. The total number of visits abroad was 26,721,000.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, does the Minister have a breakdown of those figures? Can he tell the House how many people went to South Africa?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have the figures country by country. However, I can tell the noble Lord that out of the total figure of 26,721,000 (to which I referred in answer to the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder) 19 million people were holiday-makers; 3,474,000 were business travellers; 2,957,000 people were visiting friends and relatives; and 1,138,000 visits were miscellaneous.

Superconducting Materials: Research
2.52 p.m.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what efforts they are making to ensure that Britain maintains a leading role in the development of superconducting materials.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the DTI and the SERC have jointly established a national committee to co-ordinate support for industrial and academic research. A £16 million three-year programme supported jointly by the DTI and industry was announced in January 1988. That will stimulate collaborative industrial research on superconductivity, including work on materials. SERC is providing £5·3 million over six years for the research centre at Cambridge and £2 million per annum for other research grants.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging reply. Will he confirm that there is an international consortium (in which the United States and the USSR are co-operating) looking into the research on high temperature ceramics? Can he say whether or not the United Kingdom is included in the consortium?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, it is important in the field of high technology research that parallel and competing programmes are avoided as much as possible. International collaboration may be an appropriate way of sharing the costs and risks in some areas of that research. Proposed EC initiatives would complement the British domestic programme. As regards co-ordination between the United States and the USSR, that is not something in which the United Kingdom is involved.
Lord Morris: My Lords, am I right in thinking that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, together with his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, recently announced that an advanced semiconductor programme would form part of the LINK programme generally?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, as soon as the superconductivity arena moves away from basic research and towards practical application, the time will be appropriate for the setting up of a specific LINK programme.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the Minister has referred to considerable policy initiatives made by the Government. Perhaps I may remind him of the words of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham——
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Williams of Elvel: Does the Minister remember the words of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, at Question Time last Friday—I refer to col. 856 of the Official Report—to the effect that the Government do not consider that they have to have a policy for each and every narrow sector in both the industrial and the commercial worlds? Will the noble Lord tell us by what criterion the Government decide whether or not they should have a policy?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, in this particular field the SERC decided that the field of conductivity was of the highest possible priority. The SERC has announced that it will be assisting the six initiatives. Therefore, there are another five to go. I hope that
936
they will all be as successful as this initiative is at the moment, and also equally important.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, are we therefore to take it that the sector to which the noble Lord referred on Friday—the sector of oil exploration—does not maintain top priority in the eyes of the Government?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, there are many important initiatives to which the Government have to attend. However, the Question refers to superconductivity. As regards oil exploration, I should be pleased to answer a specific Question if the noble Lord cares to put one down.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will remind the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that on Friday his noble friend Lord Young of Graffham said that the policy was to create the atmosphere in which the industry could advance as well as possible.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. That is why, in the field of superconductivity, there are at least two initiatives. One is on basic research and the other is for industry on practical research.
Baroness White: My Lords, will the Minister agree that while the prospects for the future seem more encouraging, the Question is misleading in suggesting that we already hold a leading position in the field of superconductivity? I believe that we are trying to attain that position. However, to suggest that we have attainted it is surely misleading.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I should like to pay tribute to the excellent scientists involved in our programme. My information is that we are fulfilling a leading role in worldwide research, and that our programme is comparable, in absolute size, with national programmes in other European countries and compares very favourably on a per capita basis with programmes in the United States and Japan.
Lord Morris: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his answer to my first supplementary question is in conflict with what his noble friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said on Friday? I quote from col. 865 of the Official Report:
"I recently announced, with Kenneth Baker, five LINK programmes on subjects ranging from advanced semi-conductors to eukaryotic genetics."
The noble Lord suggested in his earlier answer that it was too early to apply a LINK programme to the subject. I am puzzled.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, there are general aspects to LINK programmes, particularly between industry and education. That is something in which my noble friend is very interested. It may be appropriate to have a specific LINK programme as soon as possible on that subject.

Procedure of the House
2.57 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move that the First Report from the Select Committee on Procedure of the House be agreed to.
The meeting of the Procedure Committee was almost wholly devoted to considering the report by the group on the working of the House. It also took into account the very full debate in this House on 4th November. The report makes it clear that in the main the committee accepts the group's proposals, except in one particular respect. It recommends a significant change to the proposals in connection with Statements. Your Lordships will see that the committee's recommendations do not go as far as the group had suggested. However, it recommends that discussion on a Statement should be limited to 20 minutes after the Statement has been made.
Perhaps I may mention one other matter. The committee has accepted the proposal that in future no noble Lord may have more than two Starred Questions on the Order Paper at any one time. However, that provision will not be introduced retrospectively. I beg to move.
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
The report read as follows:
1 REPORT FROM THE GROUP ON THE WORKING OF THE HOUSE
In December, 1986, following complaints about the proceedings in the previous session, the then Leader of the House appointed a small informal Group, drawn from all parties and the Cross-Benches, to "examine the working of the House in present circumstances and to suggest improvements in the conduct of the business of the House" (HL. Deb., 4 Dec. 1986, col 935–6). The Group made their report (HL. Paper 9) in April 1987, which was printed and debated last autumn (HL. Deb. 489, No. 29). The Committee make their recommendations on each conclusion of the Group, in the light of the debate, as follows:—
SELF-REGULATION
Group Recommendations

(a) That the present system of self-regulation should continue, but that it can be made to work better (para. 16);

(b) That a Speaker with controlling powers is undesirable (para. 15);

(d) That all back-benchers have a duty to call attention to breaches of order and procedure (para.16b).

The Committee note the overwhelming support in debate for the principles of self-regulation. They endorse recommendations (a), (b) and (d) without qualification.

(c) That it is the responsibility of the Leader (or in his absence his Deputy, the Government Chief Whip or other senior Minister) to draw attention to transgressions of Order, with the support of the Opposition Front Benches (para. 16a)

The Committee note the suggestions made in debate (col. 1000) that a senior Minister should always be on the Front Benches in the Leader's absence. However, there are few Ministers in the Lords, and it is one of the duties of the Whips to be familiar with the rules of procedure. The Committee accept the Group's recommendation, with the proviso that, in the absence of the Leader, his Deputy, the Government Chief Whip or his Deputy it should be the senior Whip who tenders procedural advice to the House, or, when occasion demands, sends word to the Leader, the Chief Whip or one of their Deputies, to attend in the Chamber. The Committee agree that the Opposition Front Benches should play their part in drawing attention to transgressions of Order.

(e) That the Brief Guide requires revision and greater emphasis on order and procedure; and should be given wider currency; a revised text is offered for consideration (para. 18 ).

The Committee recommend acceptance of this proposal, which entails revision of the Companion to Standing Orders, to prevent discrepancies between the two procedural guides. They have invited the Clerk of the Parliaments to undertake a new edition of the Companion, which, when completed, will permit the Committee to consider and approve both texts at the same time.

(f) That an annual report from the Procedure Committee should draw attention to procedural difficulties in the previous session (para. 20).

The Committee traditionally look at procedural problems as they arise, and would prefer not to be committed to an annual report to the House. They undertake to give annual consideration, at the beginning of each session, to the proceedings of the House in the previous session and, where appropriate, to make a report on procedural difficulties which may have arisen.
LEGISLATIVE WORK
Public Bill Committees

(g) That Public Bill Committees should be used only when the House faces acute time pressures, for Private Members' Bills or technical and non-controversial Government Bills (para. 27);

(h) That proposed changes in Public Bill Committee procedure should be considered by the Procedure Committee (para. 28).

The Committee believe that the inherent problem of Public Bill Committees is that they are suited only to non-controversial Bills which take up little time on the floor of the House in any event. The Chief Whip has undertaken to continue to try to identify Bills suited to this procedure for the future. In preparation for such an eventuality the Committee will review the procedure for Public Bill Committees, and in particular their timing, and the manner in which Divisions are conducted.
Other proposals on legislation

(i) That there should be no selection of amendments, but that the informal system of grouping amendments should be improved by wider circulation (para. 29–31);

(j) That there should he no extension to the Report stage of the rule restricting the raising of issues on Third Reading that have already been fully debated and decided upon (para. 34);

(l) That there should no change in the rules for Third Reading amendments which should be strictly interpreted (paras. 38 and 40);

(m) That the debate at the, final stage on a Bill should be relevant to the Bill in the form in which it has emerged ( para. 41);

(n) That, when possible, reasonable notice should be given for the consideration of Commons' amendments (para. 42).

The Committee endorse all these recommendations.

(k) That only the mover of an amendment should speak after the Minister at Report and Third Reading stages (para. 33).

The Committee believe that this recommendation by the Group is in accordance with the practice of the House, with the provisos that it does not refer to short questions for elucidation, and that, where a Minister wishes to speak early to assist the House, this should not prevent subsequent debate.
QUESTIONS

(o) That there should be a reduction in the permitted number of Starred Questions by any Lord on the Order Paper at any time from three to two (para. 52).

(p) That supplementary questions should be brief and confined to not more than two points (para. 48);

(r) That there should be no change in the rules for Unstarred Questions and Questions for Written Answer (paras. 58 and 56.).

The Committee recommend acceptance of these suggestions.
The Committee have considered the practice which has recently arisen whereby the Lord asking a question appears to expect, as of right, the opportunity of putting a final supplementary. The Committee deprecate this practice and suggest that the further supplementary would sometimes be better put earlier in the exchanges. There is no right for the original questioner to ask a final supplementary question.

(q) That the 20 minute target for Question Time should continue, and that it should not exceed half an hour; in such an eventuality the Leader should intervene ( para. 53).

The Committee endorse the Group's recommendations with the exception of that referring to the intervention of the Leader of the House, which is a matter best left to his judgment.
DEBATES

(s) That there should be no mandatory time limits, but other measures to discourage long speeches, including recommended maxima of twenty minutes for Lords opening or winding up debates from either side and fifteen minutes for other speakers: Lords being encouraged to protest against breaches (para. 64).

The Committee recommend acceptance of this recommendation in the form given in paragraph 64 of the Report. The suggested maxima would only be guidelines and, on occasion, a speech of outstanding importance, or a Ministerial speech winding up an exceptionally long debate, might be permitted to exceed the limit except in time-limited debates.

(t) That the digits of the clocks should turn red after fifteen minutes (para. 64d).

The Committee note the lack of unanimity on this subject in the debate. They will report further on this matter to the House at a later stage.

(u) That Peers who leave debates early should not be answered by the Minister (para. 64c).

In the body of the Group's Report this is expressed in paragraph 64c as that "Peers who leave early cannot expect to be answered by the Minister", and in this form the Committee endorse this recommendation.

(v) That more 5-hour time-limited debates should be held (para. 71).

The Committee note that the House is holding more time-limited debates than previously, and hope that the usual channels will continue with this welcome development.
STATEMENTS

(w) That most Commons' Statements should not be delivered orally, but printed in Hansard (para. 78);

(x) That in exceptional cases where a Commons Statement is repeated orally it should be given at a time which so far as possible avoids unnecessary interruption of the day's business (para. 78).

Statements were the only issue on which there was a marked difference of opinion in the debate.
Those in support of continuing with present arrangements argued that discussion of Statements adds vitality to the proceedings of the House; allows topical issues to be raised in the House without delay; and that dimunition in numbers would restrict Opposition rights. They think that printing in Hansard provides an inadequate substitute, and that it is better to read the exchanges in the Commons Hansard, than to get the stale repetition of a reprinted Statement.
Those in favour of the Group's proposal argued that repeated Statements interrupt the main business; cause unforeseen delays in the daily timetable, which prevent members from participating in the main business; merely repeat arguments given in the Commons and are better suited to the temper and political divisions of that House; fail to receive media interest; and that the proceedings on Statements are often long and unruly, and degenerate into mini-debates, without adequate preparation, despite the wording of Standing Order 33.
In the light of views expressed in the debate, the Committee feel that the Group's recommendations go too far. Instead they recommend that Commons' Ministerial Statements should continue to be repeated in the Lords, when, in the opinion of the Leader of the House, after consultation through the usual channels, they are on a matter of national importance, and that, in such cases, they will continue to be repeated at the first convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. In accordance with Standing Order 33, such Statements "should not be made the occasion for immediate debate".
But, in view of the strongly held views of many members of the House critical of present practice, the Committee suggest that the criterion for oral repetition of a Statement should be strictly interpreted, so that the number of Statements taken orally is substantially reduced.
The Committee further recommend that, in seeking to reduce the incidence and time taken by Statements, the procedure whereby Statements may, by leave, be included in the Official Report without being given orally should continue. Additionally, they recommend that, where a Commons' Statement is not repeated either orally or in printed form, an italic reference to the Statement in question giving the appropriate reference to the Commons Hansard should be included in the Lords Hansard.
Proceedings on Statements

(y) That discussion on a Statement should not exceed 20 minutes (para. 78).

The Committee recommend acceptance of this recommendation.
PRIVATE NOTICE QUESTIONS

(z) That answers to a Commons PNQ should no longer be given as a Lords Statement (para. 85).

The Committee do not accept the Group's recommendation, as it might lead to an increase in the number of PNQs tabled in the House. The present practice should be retained.
SELECT COMMITTEES

(aa) That SO.38(4) and (5) should be amended to permit debates on Select Committee reports to be taken as early business where desired (para.95).

The Committee accept this recommendation. Points made in the debate about the allocation of resources and an innovation in the use of Specialist Assistants for Select Committees will be considered by the Staff of the House Sub-Committee.
2. MANUSCRIPT AMENDMENTS ON THIRD READING
The Committee have considered a suggestion by Lord Simon of Glaisdale that Standing Order 46 (Amendments on Third Reading) should be repealed so as to permit manuscript amendments of a short, technical and uncontroversial character to be moved on Third Reading. They recommend no change.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Bill
3 p.m.
Read a Third time.
Clause 26 [Commencement]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 1.
Page 20, line 45, after ("Section 1") insert ("and sections 23 to 27").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 2.
Page 21, line 1, leave out ("Section 21") and insert ("Sections 18 to 22").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Hesketh. )
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, there has been a misunderstanding between me and the noble Lord. I understand that he was to speak at this point, but if he is not I should like to say a few words on the Motion that the Bill do now pass.
At Second Reading we welcomed the setting up of the new Broads Authority, and we still do. We feel that it has a very useful job to do and we wish it well. We were heartened by repeated statements from Ministers in both Houses at all stages of the Bill that the purpose of the Bill was to secure the conservation of the Broads for all to enjoy. It was therefore disappointing that our attempts to enshrine that objective in the wording of the Bill were rejected. Even our modest amendment to secure two representatives instead of one for the Nature Conservancy Council in an authority of 35 members was rejected.

941
We fear that the factors which prevented the declared aims of the Bill having statutory backing may in the end defeat the hoped-for objective. We hope that we are wrong, but it is a real fear. We can only wait and see. We wish the new authority well and shall watch its progress with great interest.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I should like to say a word of thanks to those of your Lordships who have contributed to the passage of this Bill through this House. I should like to start by thanking my noble friend Lord Belstead, who, as the Minister then responsible, guided the Bill so ably through its Second Reading. Then I should like to record my thanks to all the members of the Select Committee which considered the Bill so thoroughly and carefully and two of whom, the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, and the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, also contributed to the Committee stage discussion on the Floor of this House. Finally, I should like to thank in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, who has given me my first experience in taking a Bill in all its stages through your Lordships' House, for which I shall be eternally grateful, and all the other noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have contributed to our consideration of the Bill, including my noble friend Lady Blatch, whose helpful suggestion at Second Reading we have adopted in the Bill that is now before you.
I believe that we can congratulate ourselves on having made a good Bill even better. This Bill may deal with only one small part of the country, but the Broads are a national treasure and this legislation is of national concern. I must, however, pay tribute to the eight local authorities which, by joining together to form the existing, non-statutory Broads Authority took the first step without which this Bill could not have come forward. That joint committee of the local authorities, supported by the Countryside Commission, has done valuable work over the past nine years. But more is needed, and this Bill provides for that need. I am sure that the existing Broads Authority will be glad and proud to pass the torch on—in an Olympic year—to the new authority to secure the future of the Broads for all to appreciate and enjoy.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Employment Bill
3.4 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Before I come to the detail of the Bill, I believe that it would be appropriate to remind your Lordships of—so to speak—the industrial relations legislative story so far. Noble Lords will remember all too vividly the situation which the country faced in the late 1970s. The incoming Conservative Government were faced with the task of tackling issues which had dogged the country for years under successive administrations. They did so by establishing a step-by-step process of reform.
The first step in our process of reform was the Employment Act of 1980 which had as its main theme
942
adjusting the balance of power between employers and trade unions. It was designed specifically to deal with the pressing problems revealed by the way in which the legislative framework created during 1974–79 had enabled unions to abuse their power. The philosophy which underlay that Act, the architect of which was my noble friend Lord Prior, was the step-by-step approach, and it was never intended that what was done would amount to the Government's full programme for changes in industrial relations or trade union law.
The next step was the Employment Act of 1982. Thus, the Act which followed consultation on the Green Paper of the previous year had as its main theme new responsibilities and rights for unions and employers. Many of its provisions built on those of the 1980 Act, for example, to make closed shops subject to regular approval and to make it unlawful for unions to pressurise companies or contractors into using union labour. Your Lordships will recall that the major change brought about by that Act was the removal of trade unions' special legal immunity for actions in tort, thus allowing them to be sued in their own name for injunctions and damages. The definition of trade dispute was also amended so as to redraw the boundaries of lawful industrial action.
That was followed by the 1984 Trade Union Act. Its provisions shared the common theme of promoting democratic practices in trade union affairs, for example, by requiring pre-strike ballots to be held if unions were to retain their legal immunity. New statutory balloting requirements were imposed on the election of voting members of trade union governing bodies, and review ballots for trade union political funds were made a condition of continuing with such funds. The pre-strike ballot provisions are now a part of the industrial relations landscape, being widely accepted by employers, employees and trade unions.
The next step in this process of reform is the current Employment Bill. I shall come to the Bill's detailed provisions in a minute, but your Lordships will wish to be aware that its overriding theme is the promotion and protection of union members' rights.
These then are the major themes of the Government's previous industrial relations and trade union legislation and of the current Bill.
So much for how we got here. But where in fact are we today? Your Lordships will, I hope, share my satisfaction that the country is now experiencing significant economic growth. Britain's economy is in better shape now than for many years past. We are in our seventh successive year of steady growth at an annual rate of 3 per cent., which is the best performance since the war. The position on unemployment is equally encouraging. It has fallen for 18 months in succession, and by 600,000 since June 1986. This is the largest sustained fall on record. Nearly 1½ million new jobs have been created since 1983. Confidence in the future remains buoyant, not least because industry can now work and plan in a stable climate of sound money and consistent government policy.
It is undeniable that one factor which has made a major contribution is the profound change we have experienced in industrial relations. I have alluded

943
already to the latter part of the 1970s, but in 1979 our national reputation for being strike ridden was one of the major obstacles to economic success. Since then there has been a remarkable improvement. The number of working days lost on account of industrial disputes has fallen dramatically. There were fewer strikes in each of the last three years than in any year since the war. This transformation has made a very substantial contribution to Britain's economic recovery.
It is against that background that this Employment Bill comes before your Lordships for consideration. The Bill takes the process of industrial relations law reform a stage further. It is not, as some have claimed, an attack on trade unions or trade unionists. It tackles a number of issues of clear public concern, and works within the existing legal framework. Enforcement is left to those who are directly affected by trade unions' actions. Many of its provisions simply build upon the examples that some unions have given us of how the rights of members can be secured. The Bill aims to spread that good practice throughout the trade union movement. A union which gives its members the fundamental rights and protections which they are entitled to expect in a free democratic society will have nothing to fear from this Bill.
The Bill is concerned with the right framework of law for trade union affairs; by that I mean the framework which is appropriate to the realities of present-day society and its needs for the future. It is necessary, above all, to protect and ensure the rights that ordinary trade union members want and need. It puts the interests of the individual trade union member first and foremost.
A fundamental point must be made—trade unions are powerful and unique institutions. They are not, as is sometimes argued, like social clubs or sports clubs, which concern themselves with the individual's leisure activities. Trade unions can influence the employment of their members and affect the viability of the workplace and thus the entire future of the individual trade union member. It is particularly important to remember this point when considering Clause 3 of the Bill, which limits a union's power to discipline its members.
Although there have been substantial improvements in industrial relations over the past few years, there have also been some remarkable abuses. For example, it is surely not right that some trade unions should be able to transfer their funds through the international banking system to avoid the jurisdiction of the British courts. As long as devices of that kind are used, the process of law reform cannot be said to be complete. The Bill then gives the trade union member a series of important new rights. Clause 1 establishes the right not to be called out by a union on strike or other industrial action without a properly held secret ballot which has produced a majority in favour of the action. Clause 2 ensures that union members will have their rights of access to the courts secured. Clauses 3, 4 and 5 provide the right to be free from the threat of disciplinary action by a union if, for example, a member chooses to honour his employment contract
944
rather than to take strike or other industrial action. Clause 6 gives the union member the right of access to his union's accounting records and the right to have professional advice when inspecting them. Clause 7 gives individuals leaving their union the right to ensure that deduction of union subscriptions by their employer will be stopped. Clauses 8 and 9 give members the right to stop their union from using its funds for unlawful purposes or from handing out indemnities to those found guilty of criminal offences or contempt of court. Finally Clauses 12, 13, 14 and 15 together ensure that members have the right to a postal vote in elections for all members of the union's governing body, for the general secretary and president and on ballots in respect of political funds, with the assurance that such elections and ballots will be subject to proper standards of independent scrutiny.
These rights will be available to all trade union members. Many trade unionists have some of these rights under their contract of membership with their union and to that extent the Bill merely confirms that. But there are examples of union rule books and union practices which do not guarantee these fundamental rights.
The Bill also contains provisions in Clauses 10 and 11 designed to add to personal freedom and to get rid of out-dated restrictive practices. In effect, these clauses ensure that all special legal protection for the closed shop is removed by providing that dismissal for non-membership of a union will always be unfair, just as dismissal for union membership has always been unfair, and by removing legal immunity for industrial action to create or maintain any form of closed shop.
In addition the Bill provides in Clauses 18, 19 and 20 for a Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members, whose task will be to help union members with legal actions against their unions for failure to observe the legal requirements on elections, on prestrike ballots and on certain other matters. I stress the point though that the commissioner can act only when there is a trade union member who is eligible to bring a legal action against the union and who seeks the commissioner's assistance in doing so. The commissioner is there to help the individual trade union members. He cannot act off his own bat.
There are also provisions in Clause 16 to prevent unions from manipulating the voting constituencies in ballots for selective industrial action in order to produce a particular result. In Clause 17, there is a power enabling the Secretary of State to issue, after the normal consultative procedures and parliamentary scrutiny, statutory codes of practice to improve the conduct of trade union balloting and elections. In Clause 21 provision is made for the certification officer to regulate his own procedures and for the Secretary of State to make a scheme enabling the certification officer to refund expenses incurred by certain persons attending hearings convened by him.
Finally, in describing the contents of Part I, I should also call your Lordships' attention to Clause 29. The object of this clause is to ensure that in appropriate cases it will be possible to take legal action against anybody—for example, a Civil Service

945
union—who induces civil servants to take unlawful industrial action. This clause does no more than confirm the legal position thought to apply before a recent judgment of the divisional court which held that civil servants do not have contracts. It puts unions with respect to the Civil Service in exactly the same position as any other union with respect to industrial relations law.
I have no doubt that your Lordships will be particularly interested in Clause 3 of the Bill. I do not wish to anticipate the debate but let me just say that the Government fully accept that an individual who joins a union contracts to abide by the rules of that union; the Government are not saying that his employment contract should automatically take precedence over his obligations to his union, nor are they attacking the legitimacy of industrial action. But industrial action is not essential to the conduct of industrial relations. The question which has to be faced therefore is this: can it be right for participation in industrial action to be an obligation enforceable by the union? The Government say it is not. Some unions are resolved not to strike, many unions do not strike and in most countries unions operate quite effectively without forcing their members to strike.
I turn now to Part II of the Bill. For the past 15 years the Employment and Training Act 1973 has been the foundation of our activities in these areas. That Act created the Manpower Services Commission and provided the powers under which it now operates. The new clauses seek to build on and adjust the existing provisions so as to reflect the changes, which have taken place in the labour market over the past 15 years. These changes include the rapid rise of new technology, the growing need for British industry to compete in international markets, the increase in new jobs being created and the fact that unemployment is now falling rapidly.
We believe that the best way to respond to these changes is through two separate bodies: one to deal exclusively with employment matters and the other to deal with training and retraining. We took the first step in this direction last October when, following consultation with the MSC, the jobcentres and related services were brought back to the Department of Employment. This has allowed us to begin the process of reintegration with the unemployment benefit service.
In future an unemployed person will be able to contact one service, the employment service, for the two sorts of help he needs most—help with finding a job and financial help to support himself and his family in the meantime. The first responsibility of the new employment service will be to ensure that the unemployed, and particularly the long-term unemployed, get their fair share of the new jobs the economy is generating.
Reintegration of the jobcentres allows the MSC to become primarily a training agency. Its task will be to act as the focus of our national training effort. It will have a budget of £3 billion from which to finance training directly; and it will act as a catalyst to encourage industry to anticipate and meet its own skill requirements. It is important to recognise that seven out of 10 of the people who will be in the labour market in the year 2000 are in the labour market
946
already. That is why the key theme of the commission's work will be training and retraining. The objective will be to provide not just training on entry to the labour market but training through life.
This then is a strategy which Part II of the Bill seeks to implement.
Turning now to the detailed provisions of Part II, Clause 23 gives effect to our manifesto commitment to increase employer representation on the MSC by permitting the appointment of up to six additional members. It also changes the name of the MSC to the Training Commission to reflect its newly defined role.
Clause 24 recasts the powers that were previously contained in the 1973 Act to take account of the creation of the new employment service and contains a new power to pay a YTS bridging allowance. Clause 25 enables the status of trainees to be laid down by order. Clause 26 brings the benefit sanctions applicable to people who are dismissed from approved training schemes for misconduct into line with those for people dismissed from a job in similar circumstances. Clause 27 allows the Secretary of State to disclose information on employers' names and addresses to outside agencies so that they can carry out research or surveys on his behalf. Clause 28 enables the Secretary of State to appoint additional members to the industrial training boards.
This is an important Bill supported by trade union members and the public alike. Their expectation is that this legislation will, like its predecessors, bring about practical and worthwhile changes necessary to tackle matters of evident concern. Its main provisions were proposed in the Green Paper and in the Government's election manifesto. When enacted they will enhance individual rights and help to lay the foundations for our country's future prosperity. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
3.21 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am sure that it will come as no surprise to your Lordships' House that we on this side find the Bill objectionable. Many of the main issues have already been debated in the House. Last year the Green Paper, Trade Unions and Their Members, was discussed by your Lordships. That was a consultative paper. Unfortunately the Government did not listen to many of the eminent people, including some in your Lordships House, and to many organisations covering a wide spectrum of opinion advising the Government not to proceed. People said that there had been enough legislation. The Bill now before us differs in some respects, but not markedly, from the proposals in the Green Paper.
There is a wide difference in philosophy—indeed, it appears to have become a gulf—between the outlook of the Government and Members on this side of the House. The Government's philosophy is that of tough-minded individualism. I think that Ministers would accept that statement and even regard it as a compliment. We on this side of the House believe that that philosophy puts many people at a substantial disadvantage that can be effectively overcome only by joining with others similarly placed. The

947
individual rights of a large number of people, whatever they may be, can be enforced only with the help of others and improvements can be achieved also only collectively. That idea lies at the root of trade union organisation. It is the understanding that the individual employee is not on an equal footing with his employer; that the employment contract is not one between two equal parties; and that the way to redress the balance is only in combination with fellow employees. Collectively they can exert countervailing power.
The Bill significantly fails to come to terms with those ideas. Indeed, it appears to be directed towards undermining them. It is complicated and in this address I shall deal only with what appears to me to be crucial; the main thrust of the proposed legislation. I am sure that in the debate certain of my noble friends will deal in more detail with various other aspects of it.
As was stated in the Green Paper and again by the Minister this afternoon, the aim of the Bill is alleged to be to give rights to individual trade union members. Mark you, they are not rights in relation to their employment or in regard to their employer—an area where there might be thought to be room for legislative improvement—but in regard to their trade unions. They are the unions which they have joined voluntarily—and I stress the word "voluntarily". We have already had legislation making it compulsory for unions to ballot members in advance of industrial disputes.
In seeking to run disputes, unions must inform individual members on the ballot paper that they are being asked to breach their contracts of employment. If there is a properly run ballot, with a majority in favour of action, the union has immunity from action in tort taken against it. However, the individual employer has no protection. Why that should be so has always surprised me. I do not understand why a contract of employment should not be regarded as in suspense, rather than breached, during a dispute following a secret ballot. That might have been a right worth having. Instead,' strike action continues to breach employment contracts, with all that that can mean for individual employees.
The Bill now proposes that in future, even if there has been a majority in favour of dispute actions, unions should not be able to enforce their rules against those who do not accept majority decisions, even though those people have a right to vote which they have exercised. Most unions have disciplinary rules. Your Lordships will know that for many years, until my retirement last year, I was a senior official of a large white-collar union. In my experience those rules are not enforced without a great deal of care being taken to ensure that procedures are carried out in accordance with the rules of natural justice.
As has been indicated, the Bill establishes procedures by which individual union members may present complaints to industrial tribunals that they have been unfairly disciplined and compensation may be awarded if the complaint is well-founded. The Bill makes clear what will be regarded as well-founded. Disciplinary measures will be unjustified if a member fails to participate in an action, even if
948
there has been the support of a majority in the ballot. That is one of the most controversial clauses in the Bill. The TUC is not the only body which has opposed it; so has the Institute of Personnel Management and even the CBI has strong reservations which it has made known to the Government.
I often think that the Government look at trade union activity through a distorting glass. Anyone would think that those most keen on disciplinary action are union leaderships. That is not so at all. In my union I had a responsibility for the application of union rules and internal procedures. After a dispute the people most keen on disciplinary action being taken against individuals who had not participated were those who had participated in the dispute—the members who had actually undertaken the industrial action. They were frequently furious with those who had ignored the majority vote, gone to work, been paid and who, nevertheless, also participated in the benefits of union activity and negotiations. They were the people who complained to the executives and wanted action to be taken against those whom they felt had let them down.
I have this to say to the Government: there is no law on earth that can compel people to be nice to each other. The fact that a union has procedures, that a national executive council can be called upon to look at complaints and make decisions about penalties, undoubtedly takes the heat out of post-strike situations. The activists at office or workshop level are normally content to pass the problem over to the union and allow it to be handled under its disciplinary procedures. If a union is put in the position of being unable to hold formal procedures of any kind, the majority of the workforce will find its own way of dealing with those whom they regard as having let them down. That is a recipe for conflict.
The new protections are not only unnecessary but they give rights to minorities which do not exist in other institutions. What is the point of having a ballot if what the majority says does not matter? Why go to the bother and expense of arranging a ballot in the first place? Why should any club retain in membership people who will not keep its rules? After all, as the Minister made clear in introducing the Bill, previous legislation has made the closed shop unenforceable. Therefore people do not have to belong to a union; they can leave or not belong in the first place. It seems outrageous that they should be assisted by the Government to retain all the benefits of union organisation while being able to divest themselves of any responsibility. We on this side of the House will pursue that matter further in Committee.
I should now like to turn to another section of the Bill which, in my view, seems to indicate a further and quite unwarranted interference with the way in which unions conduct their affairs. I am referring to the provisions of Clause 12. It is clear that the Government do not particularly care for a certain union president who has recently and successfully stood for re-election. However, in attempting to ensure that anyone with any say in union affairs at national level should stand for election at regular intervals, the Government appear to have spread the

949
net very wide indeed. The Bill covers not only those who are members of the national executive committee but all those who may attend and speak at meetings of the committee other than those who provide factual information or technical or professional advice.
I wonder whether the Government have fully understood what is involved in this area. Many unions, including most white-collar unions, employ officials on normal contracts of employment. This will often apply to all employed staff in a number of major unions—including general secretaries. I was employed by my union as Assistant General Secretary. It was my function, among others, to attend all meetings of our national executive council. I did not have a vote but I was responsible for preparing papers, for speaking to them as required and from time to time I was deputising for the General Secretary when he was absent and so on. I was expected to speak on behalf of the union from time to time, but always under the direction and instruction of the national executive council, by whom I was employed. I had a normal employment contract which could be terminated by each side giving requisite notice. I had ordinary employment protection as well, including the right to redundancy pay if made redundant, the right to go to an industrial tribunal if I had been dismissed unfairly, and of course I had superannuation rights.
As I have read the Bill, officials in that capacity are likely to have those rights expunged by Parliament. The contract of employment is to be nullified. Moreover, it is to apply to all those within two years of normal retirement date. That goes further than previous legislation when the provisions applied only to those up to five years away from retirement date. The Government have given no reason that I can see for the alteration from five to two years, and it seems to me entirely malicious. Why introduce these arrangements at all? There is no evidence of which I am aware that officials of the kind I have described have been guilty of maladministration or the kind of errors that could be dealt with by periodic elections. Very often those best qualified in the administrative field are those least likely to succeed on the hustings. The choice should be left to unions themselves—most of which are currently concerned to improve their administration and their services to members. That involves becoming more professional, not less.
There is another point which has been made by the CBI in its comments on the Bill:
"The tensions that could arise when the same individual was both an appointed official of the union, answerable to the executive, and an elected member of that executive, accountable to the union membership as a whole, do not need spelling out; they could well be inconsistent with the promotion of improved industrial relations".
However, the main point remains. Why have the Government decided that, for a particular class of employee, it is necessary to strike down their contracts of employment and remove employment rights which cover all other employees? There is no adequate or fair explanation and we shall return to this in Committee.
While on the subject of officials, the Bill makes it unlawful, except in certain cases prescribed by order, for a union to indemnify its officers in regard to any penalty imposed by a court for an offence or for
950
contempt of court. Again, it is not clear why this should be imposed on unions as employers and not on others. It is quite common for employers to indemnify those who act on their behalf. There was a recent well-publicised case of a newspaper which openly declared on its front page that it would not only pay the fine for one of its journalists fined for contempt, but the costs of the action as well. I do not see why it should not be allowed to do so. Again, what is the case for unions being treated differently?
There is then the provision in Clause 13 that stipulates that in future all elections for union leaderships must be by individual postal ballot. I am not against balloting and neither is the trade union movement in general but this brings to an end arrangements for workplace ballots allowed by previous legislation. The Green Paper mentioned a couple of cases of alleged abuse of workplace balloting. However, what is significant about these cases is that the unions themselves instituted their own independent inquiries and put the matters right. In many unions, workplace balloting results in much greater membership participation and therefore that option should remain.
The Bill established another bureaucracy—strange for a Government that always appear so opposed to bureaucracy and to the expenditure of public funds. We are to have a Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members. In the memorandum dealing with the financial effects of the Bill, we are told that it is expected to cost some money. The figure of £3 million in a full year is expected to be the cost of Part I. I could think of many more worthy subjects on which to spend that money. My noble friends and I spent a lot of time last week on the Social Security Bill when we were trying unsuccessfully to persuade the Government not to economise on the disabled, the sick, the homeless and generally disadvantaged. However, this new official is to have public money at his disposal to assist individuals to proceed not against their employers on issues like unfair dismissal, sex or race discrimination, redundancy pay and the like but against their unions—the unions of which they are voluntary members. The courts are already available to union members who feel they have grievances against their unions. Now the Government come along with public money to encourage complaints. Again, this could have a destabilising effect on industrial relations.
Part II deals with the Manpower Services Commission and changes the name to the Training Commission. It is also proposed to increase the number of employers, but not union representatives, sitting on the Commission. The MSC was not happy about this and has said so. The unions feel that this is a further attempt by the Government to marginalise them and to decrease their ability to influence training programmes, despite the TUC's undoubted commitment to improving training.
In this part of the Bill we also have the proposal aimed at disqualifying from unemployment benefit those who unreasonably refuse or leave a training scheme. This has to be seen in conjunction with Clause 4 of the Social Security Bill. Provisions in both Bills would have the effect of introducing an element of compulsion into training schemes. No one wants

951
compulsory trainees, least of all those employers who are genuinely concerned about training. To many young people what is proposed here will seem like a step in the direction of "Workfare" and a kind of cheap labour which will do nothing for training but will have the effect of reducing artificially the number of people on the unemployment register. However, I believe that some of my noble friends will be dealing with this aspect of the Bill in the debate.
Unions have had a bad press in recent years. I must say emphatically that I do not believe we have deserved it. The media are concerned only to report disaster and drama and therefore give most of their attention to disputes and conflict. However, an enormous amount of good work is carried out for union members which is never reported at all. It should not be necessary, 150 years after Tolpuddle, to have to make a case for trade unionism. However, in the light of this Bill I think it has to be done. For the Bill, in its main elements, strikes at the root of the solidarity so essential to the trade union movement.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I hope the noble Baroness will forgive me for interrupting. Before she finishes, is she going to say something about the statement made by the Minister that this Bill has the support of trade unionists and public alike? I believe those were his precise words.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the Bill does not have the support of trade unionists or trade union members; on the contrary. I talk now of when I was an official of my union and at that time we had a great deal of opposition to the Bill coming from the grass roots of the trade union movement. I do not believe that it is at all correct that there is support for the Bill from employees generally or, indeed, from individual trade union members. As for the public, I believe that also is a very doubtful proposition. I do not see any evidence that the public is anxious for a further tranche of union legislation. There has already been a succession of trade union Bills which are now Acts and I believe there is widespread feeling that enough is enough and that there is no need for further legislation. That is my belief.
If I may continue, exceptional rights are to be provided at public expense to individuals who flout the rules of the unions to which they voluntarily belong and in defiance of majority views expressed by their colleagues in secret ballots. That is an unprecedented attempt by Government to interfere in the internal workings of voluntary organisations.
The Government say that they are concerned about individual rights. If they are so concerned, why do they not do something to improve individual rights in employment? Instead, the whole legislative thrust since 1979 has been to remove rights from employees and to tilt the balance heavily in favour of employers. The effect has been to allow exploitation of the most vulnerable and unprotected sector of the workforce.
The Government no doubt feel that unions interfere with the free operation of the market; of
952
course, they do. They must do so if they are to protect their members from the effects of jungle economics. The Government do not want unions to be effective or strong enough to do that. That is why they want this Bill. That is why we on this side of the House must do our utmost to ensure that the Bill does not leave your Lordships' House without substantial amendment.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for the clear way in which he introduced the Bill. Hitherto my noble friends and I have given broad support to the Government's step-by-step approach to the reform of the law relating to trade unions. Indeed, on one matter, the use of secret postal ballots for electing members of the principal executive committees of trade unions, the House will recall that in 1984 we wished to go further than the Government. However, our general view on Part I of the Bill now before us is that this is not the time for yet another round of union legislation.
It is claimed that the Government's proposals were clearly foreshadowed in last year's Green Paper and in the Conservative Party election manifesto and that they have popular support. However, speaking from long experience in this field I believe that the proposals are better judged by their likely practical effect. I fear that in introducing so much more legislation of this kind the Government are now showing themselves to be less concerned with the need gradually to improve industrial relations by encouraging more co-operation between management and employees than with a desire further to cripple the effectiveness of trade unions. However, for better or for worse, this Bill is now before us. We must therefore consider its main provisions on their individual merits.
Under Clause 1 the Government are not content with enabling union members to take legal action to restrain their union from authorising or endorsing industrial action that has not been validated by a ballot. Under Clause 3 they now propose that individual union members should be protected from being disciplined by their union if they refuse to join in industrial action even when that action has been endorsed by a prior secret ballot. The Government claim that the individual should be afforded this legal protection because in taking industrial action he breaks his employment contract. What they fail to add is that in other countries, as the noble Baronesss, Lady Turner, has already reminded us, there is a right to strike written into the constitution and the employment contract is suspended if there is a strike.
I suggest that the clause may also produce practical problems for employers such as having to provide work for those who demand it. For example, what will be the position of the employer who cannot realistically offer work to those who present themselves for it? In many contracts employers have a right to lay off their employees in the event of industrial action. There could thus be a conflict between contractual and statutory rights. Is it the Government's intention that the new right given by Clause 3 should override the contractual right? I

953
should be glad if the noble Earl would answer that question when he replies.
Almost every organisation of employers advised against the introduction of this clause largely because it will undermine the balloting process. What justification have the Government for considering that they know better than those employers who will be most affected by the clause? Is there not a great danger that another consequence of the provision will be to undermine the authority of union officials, who have the responsibility to ensure that their members comply with collective agreements, and to prevent unofficial action? To put it at its lowest, the Government are surely unwise in this respect to flout the advice of almost all those who have to handle industrial relations in the front line.
It will be plain from what I said earlier that we shall support the Government's tardy acceptance under Clauses 13 and 14 of the Bill of the need for trade unions in every case to use postal voting procedures under independent supervision for the election of members of principal executive committees, and for these procedures to extend to the distribution, receipt and counting of ballot papers.
Clause 16 is a very different matter. Even in the form in which it was amended at Report stage in another place, I find it very difficult to understand. It is significant that its content was not even mentioned in the Green Paper that we debated last year. If it had been, at least the Government might have benefited from the advice of the people who will have to put the provisions into practice. It is surely highly undesirable that we should pass legislation couched in language so obscure that it may not be comprehensible to those who will be affected by it.
The purpose of the clause appears to be to ensure that in conducting ballots prior to industrial action, trade unions cannot achieve a particular result by creating artificial electoral constituencies. However, as the Institute of Personnel Management has pointed out, from the point of view of employers, this provision seems to be a double-edged weapon. It says:
"There are some corporate organisations that have always in the past managed to submerge the votes of a few notoriously militant sites in the overall results of a normally acquiescent workforce. This will no longer be possible and there is the danger that the militant sites concerned will take approved industrial action of their own.….The employer, unlike the union, has no control over the choice of local or central ballots and indeed there appears to be nothing in the clause to prevent the union first balloting company-wide and then locally if the necessary majority is not achieved; or vice versa".
The institute goes further and says that it would be more helpful from an employer's point of view if Clause 16 were omitted altogether from the Bill. At first sight I think that it is right.
Clauses 18 to 20 set out the conditions under which the Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members can assist trade unionists taking legal action against their union. We see no need for the appointment of such a controversial figure. As the CBI has pointed out, it is on the principle of improving democratic procedures within trade unions that the Government should build. That principle may be prejudiced by the introduction of such an external agency.
954
I turn only briefly to Part II of the Bill because my noble friend Lady Seear will deal with it in more detail. In Committee we shall question the Government closely over the very extensive powers that are to be accorded to the Secretary of State in making arrangements for training and employment, specifying the status of people affected by those arrangements and making payments to them. To us these provisions appear to be yet another example of the Government's reluctance to consult, of their distaste for consensus and their excessive centralisation of decision-making.
In its recent report the Manpower Services Commission was unanimous in recommending that to assure commitment to the new training scheme for the long-term unemployed, people must want to take part in it. In his Statement last week in another place the Secretary of State insisted that the scheme would be voluntary, but we know that under the Social Security Bill YTS is being made compulsory. Therefore, we are all the more apprehensive about the use to be made of Clause 26 relating to the conditions under which people who refuse to take part in training approved by the Secretary of State can be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit.
We are concerned also that, unlike other forms of income support, payment of the bridging allowance to be made to young people waiting to take up employment and training facilities is apparently under Clause 24 to be determined by the Secretary of State alone without reference to Parliament. I ask the Minister to tell us what justification there is for such payments not being made subject to affirmative resolution by Parliament. Those are just two of the points that trouble us about this part of the Bill.
In conclusion, it will be apparent that on these Benches we have serious misgivings about many of the provisions of the Bill as a whole and we shall give further expression to those misgivings in Committee.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, this is the best trade union reform Bill so far; but it is still short of ensuring complete democracy for trade union members. Despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said, union members very much like the amount of democracy which they have, and they would like some more. The noble Baroness probably thinks that a majority of trade union members still obediently vote Labour on the instructions of their union officials, but those days have long gone. They have left the old reactionaries of the trade union movement miles apart and far adrift from their union members and I am afraid that the noble Baroness is even out of touch with her own members.
I am not a union basher. I believe in unions which are strong because they accurately represent their members' views. The recent Ford strike does not mean that the improvements in the law so far have failed. It shows that they have been a success. Previously strikes on a show of hands at massed meetings could be and were manipulated by intimidation from bully boys. Now, the pre-strike ballot reveals what the members' feelings really are. That helps management and the union negotiators.

955
Whether the final form of settlement was wise or foolish, it was arrived at on a democratic basis. Likewise, the strikes at Land Rover and Vauxhall are decisions of the members alone. They may regret their decisions—that is part of the learning process in democracy—but they are their own decisions.
This Bill extends democracy further in the unions by requiring a compulsory secret postal ballot for the election of union executives. This is of great importance. The workforce ballots previously allowed were too easily manipulated. They often were and still are. That is why there have been so many doubts about the validity of recent Transport and General Workers' Union elections and those in the Civil and Public Services' Association. The electricians' and plumbers' union (much disliked by other members of the TUC because it is so democratic) uses an independent body to send out ballot papers by post to its members which must be returned to that same body for counting. That is the only safe system.
However, this Bill only requires the ballot papers to be returned to an independent scrutineer. It does not require that independent scrutineer to be responsible for sending out the ballot papers. Unless the Bill does that, there will be many fiddles and the election results will not always be as the members intended. It is too easy for union officials, particularly at branch level, to issue extra ballot papers and to write bogus votes on them, or have them attributed to people who are not even members or to members who have not voted.
In the great ETU case in the High Court in 1961 it was established that bogus ballot papers were put into envelopes and posted in different parts of the country, addressed to where the votes were to be counted. It was a technique which enabled the Communists to rig the ballots and corruptly hold power in that union for 15 years.
I am surprised that there are still members who are connected with trade unions who support that kind of activity. The independent scrutineer who receives the votes for counting must also be the person who sends out those ballot papers; otherwise we will never be sure that the votes he counts are genuine. I hope to move an amendment in Committee to rectify this defect, and I hope that the Government will accept it.
The importance of the compulsory secret postal ballot was emphasised in January when the presidential election took place in the National Union of Mineworkers. It was a workplace and pithead ballot. The ballot boxes were not locked and sealed for delivery to the Electoral Reform Society to be opened only by that society. They were emptied straight out of the ballot boxes by branch officials on the spot who then shuffled them into envelopes. Your Lordships may have seen on television the numerous and many-sized envelopes which were then delivered to the place of counting. It was easy for votes for Mr. Scargill to be added and genuine votes for Mr. Walsh, the so-called defeated candidate, to be subtracted.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, while I hold no brief for the victor in that election, is the noble Lord alleging that there was deception and
956
fraud in that ballot? If so, will he let us have the evidence?
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, I am alleging that there was fraud in the recent election for the presidency of the NUM on 22nd January. Perhaps noble Lords would care to read today's Yorkshire Post. It is headlined:
"Scargill ballot was rigged says study".
The article continues with a long analysis and survey showing that 118 per cent. voted compared with 100 per cent. available to vote.
As at an earlier election when Mr. Heathfield narrowly became general secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers, there were grave doubts as to whether the true votes of the members were counted by the Electoral Reform Society on 22nd January. It is likely that Mr. Walsh actually defeated Mr. Scargill. Mr. Scargill's supporters, for many hours before the count, were proclaiming Mr. Scargill the victor. How did they know if they had not already examined the voting papers delivered to the Electoral Reform Society? Mr. Scargill, doubtless unintentionally, profited by numerous irregularities in the handling of the ballot papers. I am surprised at the Electoral Reform Society conniving at this farce and pretending that the election was conducted properly. I recommend that your Lordships look at the Yorkshire Post today.
It is very interesting that the election for Mr. Scargill's presidency took place although it was quite unnecessary. Mr. Scargill is not at present a voting member of the NUM executive and he was not obliged to stand for re-election. He made those arrangements when the last trade union Act would have otherwise compelled him to stand. Mr. Scargill acted before this Bill could take effect extending compulsory secret postal ballots for the election of non-voting members of the executive.
He also employed another cunning device. At the end of five years from 22nd January 1988 he will be within five years of the NUM retirement age if that is altered to 60 years of age as it certainly will be. Accordingly, his election on 22nd January was aimed to give him a tenure of 10 years short of 11 days before he reaches his 60th birthday.
Mr. Scargill has now announced that he will take the Government to the European Court to overturn the law for compulsory secret postal ballots. His being so afraid of the results of them is the strongest possible evidence of their desirability. To put all doubt aside, this Bill should be amended to require any person holding a position which will now require his election to it by compulsory postal ballot, to stand again in such a ballot within one year of the passing of this Act. That will make Mr. Scargill, for the first time, contest a properly conducted secret ballot. Then all union members will know that there is no doubt about the validity of their elected executive officers. I propose to move an amendment to this effect at Committee stage. I hope that will be accepted otherwise poor Mr. Kinnock will be saddled with Mr. Scargill for another 10 years, and he will not like that one little bit.
Another item of great importance is that when voting papers are sent out by post each candidate

957
should send with them a personal manifesto in which he must state his policies and beliefs. Otherwise most members, who usually know nothing at all about a candidate, may be deceived into voting for somebody they would never have voted for if they had known what it was that he stood for.
In another place there was an amendment to that effect which was not carried at the time. The Minister, Mr. Cope, said that he was sympathetic to the idea being included in the Bill. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will confirm that this is the intention of the Government. If it is not, I shall have to move an amendment in Committee to that purpose.
The Bill provides for a commissioner to take up a grievance or grievances of union members provided the grievance or grievances seem well-founded. That is intended to be helpful to union members, but it ignores the reality in unions particularly those with a strong extremist element. Many union members are terrified of persecution if they step forward to bring actions against their own unions. That is one reason why a union known to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, the communist-dominated TASS, never complied with the declaration of the certification officer that it should hold secret ballots for the election of its executive in accordance with the 1984 Act.
It is too much to ask a nervous and inarticulate union member to go through such a mighty and exposed procedure by himself to obtain redress. He will have to do so if the Bill is not amended. It should be possible for union complainants to have their identities protected if the certification officer or commissioner is satisfied that the complaint is genuine. I hope that the Government will make the necessary amendments themselves otherwise I must put down amendments at Committee stage to that effect to try to give proper protection to union members.
I should also like to put down an amendment to require the certification officer to ensure that all unions are complying and will comply, with the electoral rules laid down in the 1984 Act and with any amendments which may be made to this present employment Bill. It is not sensible to suppose that timid union members have the resources, the strength of character or the time to devote or the willingness to put up with the intimidation involved to ensure that their union complies with the law on elections. In particular, this applies if the union is dominated by some very tough and nasty people—and there are nasty people in the unions, as the noble Baroness said. There are some very tough and nasty people, like some members of TASS for example. Their general secretary is so Stalinist that he was expelled even from the British Communist Party.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, would the noble Lord mind indicating to the House what relevance that has to the Bill before your Lordships' House?
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, I thought from what she was saying that the noble Baroness had made some attempt to read the Bill. The relevance is clear. The union to which I have just referred has
958
recently merged with her own. I hope that she and her union will now see that the communists who have been dominating TASS will now be obliged to comply with the 1984 Act on union elections and any amendments to it in this Bill.
If this Bill is tidied up in the way I suggest, it should be the last time that Parliament has to concern itself with democracy in the unions. The process has been slow but good and educative. Despite what out-of-touch leaders like the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, say, union members like to have union officials as their servants and not as their masters. The hysterical objections of the TUC and the Labour Party to full democracy in the unions seemed to have subsided recently and I hope that is still true. I hope that the unions and the Labour Party see that the added respect which is now coming to union leaders and unions because of their democratic forms of election, is raising the regard among the public for the unions and hence for the Labour Party. I do not know why on earth members of the Labour Party are opposed to it. They should be duly grateful to the Government for making it more likely, through these reforms, that a Labour Government will one day be elected again.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he prepared to repeat outside the House the allegations that he has made about the NUM election?
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, I am so sorry. I thought that perhaps the noble Baroness had read my articles in the News of the World. I have already stated them.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, what about doing it in a newspaper?
4.10 p.m.
Lord Basnett: My Lords, I hope to speak about the Employment Bill! Perhaps I may first of all apologise to the House and express my regret that because of a long-standing engagement I may not be able to stay for the whole of this debate.
Before I speak about the Bill in general terms, and in particular about Clause 3, I should like to raise one issue which I hope is not controversial. Part II of the Employment Bill will establish a training commission with responsibility to provide vocational training for the post-school population. There is no direct requirement in the Bill for the training commission to provide any special services to disabled people. In the past, disabled people have missed out on opportunities because special schemes such as the YTS have been introduced without wider arrangements for the particular needs of this disadvantaged group.
We must be concerned to ensure that similar omissions will not occur under the training commission and that disabled people will not continue to be inadvertently discriminated against by policy planners failing to make arrangements to meet their special needs. The Employment Bill must be amended so that disabled persons' needs are considered when new schemes are planned and when existing provisions are reviewed.

959
I speak on this unnecessary Bill with the background of having been a trade union officer for almost 40 years. I have worked for a trade union movement which, despite what the Minister said and despite its problems, is authoritative, democratic, responsible and competent. It is with these considerations in mind, which are not always easy in practice to balance, that I look at the Employment Bill. I believe it to be the most unnecessary piece of legislation before Parliament in this Session. I do not agree with much of the Government's legislative programme but at least I can recognise that there are arguments for some points in the Education Reform Bill. I can recognise some unfairness in the rating system, though not the conclusion that the poll tax is a better system. But what can be said about the Employment Bill?—only perhaps that memories of the 1979 and 1983 manifestos led to all the bits and pieces properly left out from previous Bills being swept into a Green Paper for the 1987 manifesto.
I accept that there was some public concern about the issues which were dealt with in the Bills of 1980, 1982 and 1984. I do not believe that there is the same public concern about the matters dealt with in this Bill; and I know of no evidence to support the assertion that the Bill has trade union support or substantial public support. I believe the Bill to be fostered by political opportunism, not high-minded principle. But most of all the Bill offends because its authors seem to know little, or care even less, about its effects. There is a rough carelessness in every clause in the Bill.
This is most in evidence in Clause 3, which aims to create a right for union members not to be disciplined by unions because they fail to participate in, or support, industrial action even if it had the support of a majority of fellow workers in a ballot. It has been argued by Ministers in the other place that an individual has a series of obligations; and so he has—to his employer, to his family, to his union, and perhaps to his profession. When these clash, as they can do when a union takes strike action, he should be able, according to the Government, to make a choice between conflicting obligations without fear of penalty from his union; not without fear of penalty from his employers or even his professional organisation, but only from his union.
We all have difficulty in reconciling conflicting obligations in our lives. We all adopt priorities knowing that we cannot escape the consequences of our actions. But when you join a union, you agree to abide by its rules. Central to those rules in an obligation to accept majority decisions. If you cannot accept them, the honourable course is to resign. There is no case for an individual defying a balloted union decision and not having to face up to the consequences. No club, no society, no scout troup, no football team—not even the Law Society or the BMA—can operate on the basis that unions would be compelled to operate under according to Clause 3. The clause offends any notion of responsible authoritative democracy.
It is not surprising, therefore, that objections to Clause 3 come from a range of objectors wider than just the trade union movement. The employers
960
through the CBI and personnel management through the IPM have been joined by a number of organisations, some of them not previously known for supporting trade unions, in supporting opposition to Clause 3. But these objections, weighty in principle as they are, are not all. The practical objections are just as weighty.
Before, during and after an industrial dispute trade union executives and their officers need all the authority and control that they can command. Unions' disciplinary rules are used to support that necessary authority. If removed or made inoperable, it is weakened, which is exactly what an enacted Clause 3 would do over a wider area than that for which it is designed. For how could a trade union executive discipline members who failed to return to work after a strike when it had not—indeed, could not—discipline members who failed to join that strike? How could a union executive, when it has failed to discipline members for not joining an authorised strike, discipline members who joined an unauthorised strike?
Of course it is possible to exaggerate the consequences of undermining union authority and responsibility in this way, but it is not possible to deny the danger of inflamed, disputes and of less responsible elements assuming the authority lost by officially elected union bodies.
To take one example, if a minority worker did not join in a large strike this would cause great tension between him and the majority. Currently unions have disciplinary processes for handling such matters which often provide a cooling-off period and opportunities for the divisions to be healed. That is much more common than expulsion from the union.
Under Clause 3 it will not be possible to have a disciplinary process, and regrettably the temptation will be for workers to take the initiative and deal with matters in all sorts of informal, possibly intimidatory, ways. So not only is Clause 3 an offence to responsible democracy but it could open the door to the type of militant action none of us wishes to see. I hope that we shall concentrate in particular in the House on this iniquitous clause and secure its removal from the Bill. Its proposal threatens democratic control with legalised anarchy. It endangers responsible trade union leadership. It hazards the calm which shows signs of settling over the previous trade union legislation. It is the most foolish part of a foolish Bill.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am happy to be able to begin by agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, on the point with which he began. I hope and believe that the training commission will have provision for the training of disabled persons. If there is any omission in that respect I very much hope that my noble friend will deal with it. I wholly agree with the noble Lord that it is of grreat importance that disabled people should get the fullest possible training.
I regret that there my agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, terminates. Understandably

961
from his point of view, he devoted most of his speech to a criticism of Clause 3. I should like to examine a little the arguments that he adduced against it.
In the first place he did not face up to the fact that any individual, trade unionists or otherwise, has a series of duties. A man who takes part in a strike makes himself vulnerable to being dismissed, which is a very serious matter indeed for any man. Therefore, he has to consider not only his loyalty to his union but also his loyalty to his family and sometimes also his loyalty to an employer on whose prosperity he very much depends for his future. It is therefore quite wrong to enable the union to punish him if he decides that the other loyalties, to his family or to his employer, take precedence to his loyalty to the union.
It is no use saying there is no point in having a ballot if at the end of the day individuals need not strike. They may well vote in the minority. Is there any reason why a trade union member should be compelled to sacrifice his future and perhaps his job because a union has taken action of which he happens to disapprove? It is not as easy as the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, suggests to provide that union discipline shall take precedence over everything.
To take a recent example—I do not know whether the noble Lord defends it—during the recent Wapping dispute, the National Union of Journalists fined 95 journalists £1,000 each for crossing picket lines. Is that really justifiable? They were responsible, professional men who saw their duty to their newspaper as more important than their duty to the union. They attended, and so were to be fined by that unofficial body the quite substantial sum of £1,000.
When the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, says that there is no public concern about the present state of the law with which this Bill is designed to deal, I think he is wrong in that respect. The public as a whole were very disturbed by all the goings-on of the Wapping dispute, of which the persecution of those journalists who stuck to their job is just one example.
I am very glad that the Government are going ahead to deal with this issue, which goes to the root of the Bill. As I understand it, the object of the Bill is to give back power to the union members from the leadership. It is not to bash trade unions, but it is inside the unions to restore the rights of the members as against the excessive powers which the leadership has exercised. That is of the essence of the Bill, and that is why it is necessary to provide a commissioner for trade unions, for it is useless to give a man a legal right to sue a large, rich union unless you give him some assistance in the sueing of it. One remembers the old remark that courts of law, like the Ritz Hotel, are open to all. It is obvious that an ordinary indivdual cannot possibly take his union to court. It is extremely important that a citizen whose rights under this Bill when it becomes an Act are violated by a union will have proper assistance from the commissioner in taking the matter to court. This is the theme of the Bill.
I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, that it is the best of the four Bills we have had so far which have been part of a methodical process of bringing the trade unions and their leadership in particular into a proper relationship with our society as a whole.
962
One has only to cast one's mind back to the 1970s, to the confusion, the strikes, the midnight gatherings at No. 10 Downing Street, and all the drama and disturbance which was then caused, and then to contrast that with the much more orderly state of affairs which exists today. The importance of the change from the 1970s situation can hardly be overestimated because it accounts in large measure for the great improvement in our general national position. In the 1970s the wealth-creation power of this country was undermined and weakened by the disputes and by the arrogant, aggressive action which some unions and their leaders took. Wealth creation is essential. It is no use talking about the woes of the National Health Service unless one is prepared to support measures which will help the creation of the wealth to pay for it. Wealth creation is of great importance, as also is foreign investment. That too was very much discouraged by the action of the unions in the 1970s, but it is now becoming stronger and immensely valuable and is creating increased employment.
All the problems about which your Lordships are concerned, about which we all care a great deal, such as unemployment, are related to this. If one can stimulate the national economy, encourage foreign investment and increase the competitiveness of British industry, not only can one have the funds which are necessary for our various social security needs but one can also raise the individual's standard of life. It is also possible, as we are doing, steadily to diminish the levels of unemployment. As we have seen, this steady improvement of the position is having its effect.
It is not a case of asking your Lordships to accept a theory. It is only a case of asking you to look at the reality of what is happening before your eyes. This is why I particularly welcome this Bill and the very clear way in which it moves excessive power from the union leadership mainly to the members of the unions themselves. As your Lordships know if you have studied history, where power is excessive, where it is excessively used, then sooner or later it is taken away. Our kings found it. Your Lordships' House found it. The big industrialists of the 19th century found it. Power moves away from where it has been excessively concentrated and aggressively used and this is simply another example of that.
There are many other parts of the Bill—but I shall not weary your Lordships by referring to them—which are of the very greatest importance. I particularly welcome the provisions in respect of the closed shop. I have never regarded the closed shop as justified. Your Lordships may be interested if in support of that I quote a personal experience. When I was chairman of Rugby Portland Cement some years ago we did not recognise trade unions. I thought that was a mistake and that we should have recognition of trade unions. I had helpful conversations with that very considerable trade union leader, Mr. Jack Jones. We agreed to trade union representation in Rugby's works, even though at least one of those works on the ballot did not want to have it. We agreed to it on the clear understanding that the closed shop would not be expected or imposed and Mr. Jack Jones, your Lordships will not

963
be surprised to know, being the honourable man he is, agreed entirely to this and abided by that provision which continues, as I understand it, to this day.
That surely is the right approach to the unions. Excessive power over their members, excessive power over the community, is harmful. but they have a real and important role to play and I do not, as one who has been concerned with a good many industries, under-rate that in the slightest. I believe that this Bill, by getting the power structure more tidily aligned, will enable that good role to be fulfilled. I have only one other point that I want to make before I sit down ——
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? Before he leaves that point, would he not agree that the closed shop has been known for centuries far better to the professionals—the lawyers, the accountants, the medical profession—than it was ever known to the workers and it seems to work very successfully to their advantage?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Baroness is, I think, indulging in a half truth. To take the example of the lawyers, that is not a closed shop in the sense in which we discuss it in the trade union world, because no one can be a member of those professions who has not passed the necessary examinations. There is no necessary examination before the closed shop is applied in the trade union movement. So she will see the difference between a profession which rightly sees that it should have proper qualifications among its members and the closed shop where the sole condition of employment is membership of a particular body regardless of your qualifications. I hope that the noble Baroness will see the difference.
I was about to refer to one other matter and that is the question of postal ballots. I was very interested, as I think were your Lordships generally, in the example quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford. But it is certainly well known that workplace ballots can be fiddled—it is certainly known that in a number of cases they have been—and it undermines the whole concept of ballots if you have them and then they are not honestly conducted.
I think we need to move, as the Bill proposes in respect of elections of officers and also as I understand it the institution of a political levy, to postal ballots for this purpose. Whether the supervision of those postal ballots themselves, as proposed by the Bill, is fully adequate is a point that your Lordships may well wish to discuss. I was interested in the possible weaknesses of the proposals to which the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, referred, but that the move should be to the postal ballot for these very important provisions is, I am sure, a considerable improvement in the Bill.
I welcome the Bill. I welcome it as the fourth in a line of measures which have contributed considerably to the national welfare. I am a little surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, seemed to be going back on the line which his party took in 1984. His enthusiasm seemed to be perhaps a little fading and
964
I hope that as he listens, and as members of his party or his alliance, if that be the organisation, listen to the debate their enthusiasm may revive, for the Government are courageously going forward with a measure of first-class national importance and I wish them the best of luck with it.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I want to see that I have understood him correctly. He said, I think, that he would support the closed shop if there was, first, a qualification, but, secondly, membership of an association. That is why it is all right with the law. Would he therefore support an amendment, which we might put down at Committee, which says that the closed shop is all right for skilled craftsmen if the unions run an examination?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord began by misquoting me. I did not say that I would support the closed shop if it depended upon qualifications. What I did was to point out to the noble Baroness that what she called the closed shop in the case of the professions, including the profession of which the noble Lord opposite is a distinguished member——
Lord McCarthy: I am not.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter:—depended upon examination, whereas the closed shop in the unions depended simply upon joining a union. I did not say that I would support it. Therefore the noble Lord's ingenious attempt—and I am very flattered that he should think it worth while—to secure my support for his amendment fails.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he agree that the closed shop is now only possible after a ballot and a very high measure of support in a ballot as well?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: No, my Lords, I would not. I think that the closed shop in principle is wrong, and that if you wish to work for a particular company in a particular industry you should not be compelled to join a union. You may well have good reasons for doing so voluntarily, but I am against conscription.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, until the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, I thought that we were going to have a somewhat undramatic Second Reading debate on this Bill. But quite clearly his revelations and his posture as the great reformer of evil doings in trade unions are going to emerge at a later stage. One must at any rate congratulate the noble Lord on, I think, achieving almost single-handed the unveiling of the delinquencies and the evils of the communist regime in the Electrical Trade Union of the 1950s and 1960s.
As a member of the General Council of the TUC at the time, I realise the great handicap that the trade union movement was under, and certainly the TUC was under, in itself participating in these investigations because of the very strong convention that the Trades Union Congress did not interfere

965
with the affairs of individual unions. That was a significant inhibition against the inquiries and the delving and probing that should have been done at that time.
I shall try to approach this Bill from as unprejudiced a point of view as I can. First, I should like to ask the Minister: is this the end of the step-by-step approach to trade union reform? The noble Lord who opened the debate said that this Bill carried the reforms a stage further. I was hoping he would have said that, so far as the Government could see, this was the end of the legislation on trade unions at least for the remainder of this Parliament. I do not think it is a good thing to have trade union relations or industrial relations the subject of legislation every two years. I had hoped that we were coming to the end of it and could at least rest a while and see how things which are already in the law or may be in the law after this Bill passes through your Lordships' House turn out in practice.
So I hope we shall have some assurance that the Government do not have another Bill to take matters further in this field of controversial legislation. There have been 13 major Bills on trade union law in the past 50 or 60 years. Two of them, in 1946 and 1974, were to repeal major laws which had previously been enacted. In 1946 the Labour Government repealed, lock, stock and barrel, the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act 1927. I have always felt that it was a great mistake to think that the problem was solved merely by returning to the status quo ante and going on with trade union law as it had been left before the war.
There was an extraordinary period of tranquility between 1946 and the late 1970s. After all, we had 13 years of Conservative government after 1951, during which no changes of any substance were made in trade union law. In fact, the relations with the then Conservative Government and Ministers of Labour who were revered and almost loved by the Trades Union Congress were such that it seemed as though we had a balanced ticket for relations between the Government, Parliament and the trade union movement. But that was cruelly disturbed a little later on when the Labour Government came in in 1964. We remember Ray Gunter, the first Minister of Labour in the Wilson Government, saying that he had got a bed of nails. He certainly had. Indeed, the rash of unofficial strikes at that time led to the appointment of the Royal Commission on trade unions under the chairmanship of Lord Donovan. It took far too long to report. It had to cover far too much ground, and when the Labour Government tried to deal with the problems which arose during their own term of office, they ran into difficulties.
I am afraid that one of the most intractable problems for a Labour Government is dealing with the law relating to trade unions. I am bound to admit that we left office in 1979 not having accomplished any substantial solution of trade union problems. It was inevitable that we were faced with changes in the law which the Conservative Government in 1971 failed to achieve, which the Labour Government that followed failed to improve upon. Then in 1979, in a period of chaos, confusion and disillusionment, the Labour Government went out.
966
The sad part about our proceedings today is that we are dealing in this legislation with what I hope is substantially the past. We are not legislating with enough vision for the future. This may not be our fault, but I regret that we have not yet evolved some kind of outlook on trade union affairs which will see us into the next century. We have only 12 years to go before the next century begins—only one full Parliament after this before we are into the next century. How are we going to face that? I know one year is the same as another, but the year 2000 will surely be a most remarkable anniversary in the history of this country, in the history of all our institutions. I sincerely hope that we shall all have some better idea of where we are going by the year 2000 than we appear to have at present. That applies to the trade union movement as well.
The delinquencies of the trade unions in the period when I was directly concerned with them were extremely worrying. In the last three Acts of Parliament which have been brought in by the Conservative Government, a number of them have been adequately dealt with. I hope that a future Labour Government will be highly cautious about undoing a good deal that this series of Bills and Acts of Parliament has brought in. In many respects they are confirming the principles of trade union liberty, of individual members and the conduct of union affairs which many members wanted and which a number were engaged in bringing about voluntarily when legislation was under preparation. I think it would be very undesirable and dangerous politically to begin to reverse this on the ground that we must restore something to the members of trade unions or the trade unions themselves.
This will be a very delicate political matter for a future Labour Government to deal with and I hope that no Labour Government will come in with wholesale pledges of repeal round their neck on matters relating to trade union law. There may be some things in what we are doing now—probably there are—which need to be corrected. I think experience will be a very important test of the validity, and wisdom and practicality of much of the legislation which we have already.
One other point which I have to make is that if this is virtually the last Bill we shall have in this Parliament on the subject, as I hope it is, we want as far as possible to redress any excesses which have occurred in the previous three Acts of Parliament. We also want to get the best and widest possible support for the provisions of the Bill itself. I think this Bill is carrying some matters to excess, and it is desirable that we should curb the pressure in another place to push some of the safeguards too far. We find this in Clause 3 especially.
The point there is that, having safeguarded the member from being called out on strike without giving him an opportunity of voting yea or nay for going out on strike, we now say in Clause 3 that notwithstanding the right we have now put in the law that he shall vote on whether he strikes or not, we shall give him the right to withdraw from strike action even though the membership in general have approved it. We shall go further. We shall say that he may not be disturbed in his employment. He may not

967
be victimised or disciplined by his union. That is carrying matters very far indeed, and some modification is called for.
As regards ballots, if we are to have them they should be as free of irregularities as possible. The safeguards should be as complete as can practically be made. I favour postal ballots. If there are any weaknesses in the postal ballot system we should do our best to correct them. I have always felt workplace ballots had their dangers. We should eliminate those dangers in the ballot system. If ballots are to be imposed by law on any section of the community, it is our duty to ensure that they are conducted properly.
As regards Clause 12, noble Lords who still have very good eyesight will see, if they study the watermark, that underneath the clause the name of Scargill can be discerned. The clause is becoming known as the Scargill clause due to the evasive action taken by Mr. Scargill, as was described by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford. That action was taken to circumvent what otherwise would have been required of Mr. Scargill with regard to standing for re-election.
Again, however, I think that we have carried this too far. We have gone too deeply into the internal affairs of unions and their contracts and arrangements with officials than is justified in present circumstances. It seems that this provision goes down even to the level of trustees. It can certainly cover full-time officials who may have a voice at executive council meetings but who have no responsibility or no vote in the final decisions reached by that body. The explanations given by the Minister as to whether individual types of official would be exempt or required to undergo re-election under Clause 12 have been very unsatisfactory.
It is not enough to say that the matter may have to be tested in the courts. It will be quite monstrous if individual members and officials of trade unions who have contracts of service are forced to go into the courts to determine whether they have to stand for re-election. I should be very surprised indeed if your Lordships do not take a conventional view of the sanctity of contract. The people involved with this issue have contracts. I was one of those people myself. I came out of the Civil Service to become a full-time secretary of a union. In doing so, I naturally desired to have the same, or approximately the same, security of tenure as I had had in the Civil Service. I had a contract which took me to retirement age subject only to the overriding power of the annual delegate's conference to dismiss me or terminate the contract.
However, under Clause 12 it would have been necessary for me to stand for re-election every five years, although not as the law stands at present because I had no vote at any time on the executive committee. These are very important points if we are going to drive people to the hazards of political contests in unions where elections might otherwise involve quite non-political and unprejudiced officers. Nominal officers may be the subject of bitter political controversy in unions. This provision will have to be thoroughly examined in Committee. Those are the
968
two respects in which, in Clauses 3 and 12, the zeal of the reformers has gone further than it should.
There are other matters which will require attention in Committee but I cannot, as an overriding judgment on the Bill, condemn it wholly and outright. It probably would have been wiser to have left it a while before we went into this fourth stage. Nevertheless, the judgment of the Government is to complete it. We shall have to do that to the best of our ability. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, I hope that we are improving relations and the management of trade unions and not stirring up fresh trouble and fresh difficulties. Much of the Bill is delving into past practices which, I think, in present conditions, may well be the end of an unpleasant era in trade union affairs.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, I intend to address myself to Part I of the Bill and indeed to quite limited aspects of it. But before I come to that, I wish to comment on the claims often put forward (and repeated here this afternoon) by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, about the alleged achievements of the legislation that we have seen so far in this field.
By any objective standards, I question whether those achievements are real. Clearly, we have seen more ballots on industrial disputes. I do not complain about that, but it may be that those who were hot for ballots may have had second thoughts about the desirability of them. The Ford dispute is not by any stretch of the imagination the first occasion in which recommendations for reasonable settlements by trade union officials have been turned over by the members. Now there is the ability to go to a ballot with the result that we have seen in Fords as distinct from accepting some kind of cool period and getting on with the job.
Incidentally, there were plenty of examples of that during the so-called winter of discontent which has been mentioned this afternoon in which reasonable and sensible recommendations made by responsible officials for settlements were turned down by the members. The characteristic of that winter of discontent (as it has come to be called) was not of officials themselves spurring members to action, it was members taking the law into their own hands and turning down agreements that had already been reached.
The picture painted by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, of trade union officials whipping up timid, nervous and inarticulate members frankly exists solely in his fevered imagination. Again the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, told us about the reduction in days lost in recent years. There has been a reduction and an even greater reduction than in the years 1975 to 1979, during the social contract, when the days lost were halved compared with the previous period.
Frankly, I have never regarded days lost in industrial disputes as being either the main or a particularly useful indicator of the state of industrial relations in a particular company or union. A much more important one is how effectively manpower is being used. That is why I have always had so high a regard for the Manpower Services Commission. That

969
is why I am a little bit worried about Part II of the Bill, although I cannot develop that point at this stage this afternoon.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that the essence of this matter is the creation of wealth. The wealth that is created by 3 million people who are unemployed is highly debateable. By that test, the provision is not particularly useful. But the point is that it is not the law but the state of the labour market, and the level of unemployment which has led to the reduction in the days lost in industrial disputes. Now we are beginning to see people putting their heads up over the parapet and taking a look round. I do not particularly welcome the signs of increasing discontent. However, it is understandable. Indeed, in the public sector we are in serious danger of repeating the errors made in the months leading up to the winter of discontent—which was lead by the public sector unions—in the way that we are treating public sector employees, particularly in the hospital service. The only effect in the Ford case was an increase in the cost of settlement.
Again we are seeing a fall in trade union membership. That may be welcomed by the Government and those who support them. It has been a substantial fall. I think that we should examine the reasons for that. The fall in the number of trade unionists and unions affiliated with the TUC can be accounted for almost wholly by two factors. The first is the rise in unemployment which means that people leave their unions. The second factor is the decline in manufacturing industry over recent years.
That still leaves unions with a job to do, and I am glad to see the TUC addressing the minds of unions to that job. But the fact is that in spite of all the legislation and pinpricks, members have not walked away from their unions. They have not deserted in droves—no doubt to the disappointment of the Government, but not I think to the disappointment of sensible employers.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, has the noble Lord heard of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers?
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, as regards the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, the members have not walked away from the union. They have succeeded into a particular sector which is still very highly organised and which I hope will soon be realigned and reunited with the National Union of Mineworkers. It is in the interests of no one to multiply the number of unions we have in this country. I should not have thought that the noble Lord. Lord Wyatt, would advocate that. We already have too many.
The Government are entitled perhaps to be disappointed with the effects of the legislation so far. Presumably that is the reason why they are bringing the Bill forward. I understand the Government rather petulantly stamping their feet, at for example, the failure of trade unionists to take legal action against their unions. I can understand that. Let them, so long as they do not seek to stamp on the basic right (which has been referred to several times this afternoon) of members of unions to expect that minorities who
970
have had the opportunity to vote and been defeated in the vote shall not then disclaim any responsibility towards their organisation.
As to most of the rest of Part I, with deep respect I believe that most of the provisions illustrate a lamentable degree of ignorance of industrial relations and trade unions. Whom are the provisions meant to help? The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, claims that they put the interests of trade union members first. So far as I can see on an objective analysis of Part I, it will not help trade union members very much.
Where is the evidence that union members have been denied access to the courts? On the contrary, the principles of natural justice concentrate the minds of union executives, as of the TUC General Council, whenever they are considering disciplinary matters. Where is the evidence of unions denying information to members? The problem I have always seen is that of members refusing to come to information meetings and refusing to read union journals and other communications telling them what is happening. The need is quite the obverse of the one set out in the Bill.
Again, I doubt very much whether Part I will be of much help to employers, who are already being very careful about using the law and have become even more cautious as the labour market reduces. The one small group which I believe will welcome many of the provisions with open arms and which shares with the Government a deep animosity towards trade union leaders is the Trotskyites, which is prepared to use anything—compulsory ballots, election of officers—in order to try and stir up things within the trade unions.
I am not opposed to ballots or to elections. But I deplore the rather spiteful attitude towards trade unions displayed by what I can only describe as a silly Bill. Perhaps I may give the House a few illustrations of how the obsessions of the Government have led them astray. First, Clause 12 refers to the election of certain people with non-voting powers. Reference has already been made to that in the debate. The aim, it is said, is to make officials more accountable and to make the organisations more democratic. The likelihood, on any objective assessment, is that more often than not the reverse will happen.
Take the question of an appointed general secretary, for exmple. His election will greatly strengthen his position against the executive council. That may be good or bad; it depends on the circumstances. But it certainly diminishes the responsibility of the council towards their members. That responsibility ought to be the main source of authority within the union. That should lie with the elected executive. There is a real danger that the provision will reduce the quality of leadership, and by that I mean the capacity and the will to stand up to the members and tell them when they are wrong. I believe that many good people will be hesitant to take on a job which carries the risk of being chucked out in five years' time.
The provision will also deprive the executives of smaller unions of the appointment of competent and capable people from outside. I take as an example Mr. John Lyons of the EMA who presumably would not be in office today. It would, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has said, introduce a two-party

971
system and cause a waste of time and energy in electioneering. It would also cause elected general secretaries—people upon whom election has been thrust—to think twice before taking unpopular actions vis-à-vis their memberships.
Then there is the nonsense of extending the provision to other people who attend executive council meetings. Let me give your Lordships an example drawn from my own experience in the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers, which I serve as an appointed trustee. There are four trustees: the chairman is a lawyer; there is an industrial relations academic; there is a former International Labour Organisation official (the union has a great interest in international affairs); and there is myself. We attend the executive council and we speak. We have no vote and our usefulness lies in the advice which we give to the EC. The advice can be accepted or rejected by the executive of that organisation. Our strength lies in our independence of the general secretary, the executive and groups of membership. We give advice which we believe is in the interests of the union. Who in his right mind would require an election in those circumstances with perhaps competing slates of trustees appealing to the membership?
Perhaps more to the point are the officers who attend as a result of previous mergers which have taken place within this diminishing area of industrial activity. They are officers who have been, by the terms of the transfer of engagements, put in to ensure that the views of important groups of members are fully explained and fully represented.
I turn briefly to Clause 13 which concerns postal ballots. I am not opposed to the use of postal ballots in elections. Some unions already use that method. The union of construction workers, for example, where membership is dissipated into small groups over a wide area, finds it very helpful. It suits that union. Whether it suits the members of a particular union should be the test of whether or not the provision is introduced, rather than whether a particular political party holds the method as an ideological truth which ought to be thrust upon all unions.
How do we foster democracy within a union? There is no doubt that in the vast majority of cases workplace voting is preferable by far. Perhaps I may quote from evidence which has recently been given by the union APEX, which to my knowledge has never been involved in any allegation of ballot-rigging and is a very honourable and, if one likes the phrase, moderate trade union. The evidence from APEX emphasises the need to:
"ensure that the ballot paper is delivered at work in an envelope specifically addressed to each individual member and that the member has the right to place the completed ballot paper either in a ballot box at appropriate places at work or posted hack to the Head Office of the union concerned. We followed that system and it works very adequately indeed. If we change over to a system of postal balloting this will certainly mean that fewer people will participate because there is no way in which we can persuade our members to regularly update us with their home addresses and certainly, at any one time, between 15% and 20% of such ballot papers would be returned, 'gone away'. Thus the proposal would reduce the participation of Trade Unionists in ballots instead of strengthening it".
972
That is a union speaking from its own experiences and its concern to ensure that the members themselves are involved fully in the determination of the union's policies and leadership.
In conclusion, perhaps I may advert to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in the course of his stimulating speech—with not all of which I entirely agree. However, I agree with the emphasis that he laid on the need to look ahead and to see where we are going. The way forward towards the improvement of industrial relations, the effective use of manpower and the improvement of wealth creation does not lie in legislation. On the contrary, legislation is more likely to impede than to advance it.
I believe that the way forward lies in the working out of an agreement between the TUC and the CBI—one hopes with the involvement of the IPM and the BIM—on the framework for good industrial relations of the kind that were very nearly achieved just after the Donovan Commission, to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, referred, and within which there could be an agreed approach to the use and role of law in industrial relations.
The achievement of such an agreement would not be easy, but the alternative of ping-pong—the passage and repeal of legislation by successive governments of different parties—does not bear consideration. I hope that during the course of the subsequent stages of the Bill noble Lords all round the House who have some experience of industry and concern about industrial relations will join us in trying to bring some common sense into this silly Bill.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, it is a happy coincidence that I should follow the noble Lord, Lord Murray, as we came to this House more or less simultaneously. I welcome the general provisions of this Bill, not least because it will help to overcome some of the remaining labour market rigidities that are preventing the creation of jobs. That is something which I am sure we all want to see. The Bill also enhances personal freedom and philosophically I believe that that is always desirable.
However, it is not on Part I that I wish to speak. I should like to speak briefly on Part II, which highlights the Government's commitment to training by giving a more positive identity to the work of the MSC by re-christening it the Training Commission. I was particularly pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, say that the Government were anxious to see that in its new state the commission would give a very positive commitment to finding ways of employing the long-term unemployed.
It leads one to ponder whether the division of responsibility between the MSC (now the Training Commission), the Department of Employment, the Department of Health and Social Security and the Treasury for looking in depth and finding new initiatives that would get the long-term unemployed hack to work is even now quite right, and whether the existing mechanisms are not in a bit of a muddle. I must say that recent events lead me (and I think others) to believe that a split in the Department of Health and Social Security is long overdue and that

973
the two areas of responsibility would be far more effective by being divided up the middle. I hope that the example under Part II of giving a greater indentity to the MSC will lead the way in other directions.
However, that is not really the nub of my point today, which is that, because of the split of responsibilities, very important opportunities for employing the long-term unemployed are lost. The real growth in the labour market today is the growth in part-time jobs; yet effectively re-entry into the employment market through part-time jobs is denied to the unemployed. In practice, of course they can register for part-time jobs, but the hassle of registering and deregistering, declaring their earnings and watching the level of their disregard makes the whole thing simply not worth while.
As a consequence, the paradox is that the growth area of the market—part-time work—is filled by those who often, perfectly reasonably and properly, have other jobs such as part-time firemen, part-time policemen, or by wives who want to pop out and do a few hours' work. It is filled in particular by old-age pensioners. There is nothing wrong in that, one might say, except that already the state provides for them to a degree. It is a paradox that they—because they pay no stamp and have no disregard limit on their earnings—pick up part-time jobs, whereas the long-term unemployed effectively are denied re-entry into employment in this way.
I hope that the new Training Commission, with its new title, will not be taken up wholly with the question of training but will look at other ways and other initiatives to achieve the jobs that we all want to see. In particular, I recommend to it the work of the trade unionist, Peter Ashby, at St. George's, Windsor, who I think has come up with a solution which would enable, particularly those over 50—often people who are very willing and anxious to get another rung on the ladder—to get back to work.
Before one sneers at the thought of part-time jobs, surely it should be recognsied that a part-time job is better than no job because it brings self-respect to the person who has been out of work. Not least, to get a foot on the ladder—by moving stores in the grocery on Saturday mornings and to be recognised as a good worker, somebody who does a good job. Thereafter, one is much more likely to be the person who is offered a permanent job and find oneself working not only Saturday but Fridays, Thursdays, Wednesdays, Tuesdays and Mondays. I believe that part-time reentry into the labour market is a very important area and I hope that the new, rechristened commission will have a thorough look at it.
So this brief speech is merely to say that I hope that the MSC will build on its excellent work in the past and go on to even greater strength under its new, much more positive and easily identified title. I welcome the provision in this Bill which sets it up and I am sure that it will do nothing but good and help to create the jobs that we all want to see.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, there will be few who will be misled by the title of the Bill—the Employment Bill—into thinking that it is primarily concerned with employment. Indeed, the future for employment is
974
far from its purpose. Despite eight years of continuous chronic high unemployment, this Bill is not a pro-employment measure. I say that with due respect for the improved employment situation mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, in his opening statement. The noble Lord, Lord Vinson, who has just spoken, mentioned the long-term unemployed. One may well ask whether this Bill will do anything but add to the misery of the 1,300,000 long-term unemployed men and women who have been without jobs for more than five years, the rise in the number of unemployed being from 22 per cent. in 1981 to 42 per cent. in 1987.
In the main this Bill is designed to impede the purpose, role and functions of trade unions, which are to maintain and improve the wages and working conditions of working people. The Bill is a further part of the step-by-step strategy of the Government since 1979 to weaken the activities of unions and thereby weaken their ability to serve and protect their members.
How can there be any other reasonable explanation? This is the fourth major anti-trade union Bill introduced by this Government within the past eight years. From these Benches we strongly oppose the Bill and especially the shocking nature of Part I of this three-part piece of multi-purpose complicated legislation. We oppose the Bill because it is blatantly anti-union in its unreasoned and punitive legal measures and because of spurious claims that the measures will extend democracy in trade unions and enhance the right of trade union members. We oppose it because it completely ignores the present need for a framework of industrial legislation in which can be promoted a sense of responsible social partnership between trade unions, management and the Government.
We do not claim that trade unions are perfect models of democracy. However, we believe that they are as democratic as any other human institutions and in many ways more so. They are more democratic than the City, many private and public companies, elitist clubs, councils of universities and most political parties. We do not seek to justify breaking democractic procedures and rules, nor do we seek to turn a blind eye to intolerance and illegality, but we refuse to endorse measures that are rash, negative, unnecessarily punitive and argued on politically motivated ideological grounds.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Murray that we ought to be considering measures to meet our present need for dynamic industrial relations. There is need for an understanding of the essential qualities of leadership and a genuine commitment among the representatives of government, management and trade unions to policies designed to cope with the dramatic challenge of world competition and economic change.
What does the Bill propose? Instead of using and improving the existing machinery for resolving industrial grievances at the workplace level or, if necessary, through the agreed national industrial machinery, the Bill proposes the imposition of a new legal framework with crudely designed penalties as well as a certification officer whose role and functions could be drastically changed by the appointment of a

975
new officer—the Comissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members. The rights of trade union members—what a misnomer of a title! I doubt whether the commissioner, if he is appointed, will fully explore all the practical rights which workers ought to have and which their trade union organisations have sought to obtain.
Then there is introduced the wide panoply of the law. Tribunals will give way to the High Court, the Court of Session, judicial review and perhaps further judicial measures. For what purpose? Allegedly it is to protect workers against the activities of their own unions.
It is not only trade unions which are concerned about the politically designed paraphernalia of legal requirements. The major employers, professional management organisations and representative bodies have publicly expressed deep concern and doubt about these developments and their untoward effect on industry and commerce. The issues, the muddled proposals and the overall assessment of the Bill's implications for industry and the economy will be debated in a series of amendments that are to be tabled from this side of the House at Committee stage.
In the early part of this debate, mention was made of the present standing of trade unions. Research undertaken by the Trades Union Congress and recently published results from regular Gallup and MORI polls firmly indicate that trade unions are now more popular with their members and the general public than at any time during the past 30 years. That is in spite of the bad press that they generally receive. One reason for that support for trade union membership and trade union organised activities is the fresh awakening of workers and their reliance on trade unions for effective representation to ensure their real rights at work rather than any imaginary transitory rights.
Those points are clearly set out in an excellent House of Commons document, Background Paper No. 208, entitled Wage Flexibility and Employment Creation. I quote from the conclusions of that 17-page paper:
"In the actual labour market there has been some pressure towards lower and more flexible wages by a variety of changes in industrial relations law that have weakened trade unions. This may have an effect in employment creation but it will be at the price of worsening conditions particularly for those workers in the secondary industrial sector, and such workers are often sufferers from sexual or racial discrimination".
I believe that this Bill will build up an attitude and an approach that even the trade unions will not be able to contain. The Bill will further exacerbate the frustrations, disillusion and tensions aroused by the Government's thwarting of accepted procedures for negotiations. I must point out to the House that trade unions will not be driven to becoming mere ciphers in the workplace. One has recently seen white-collar workers and professional personnel joining the rank and file workers in street parades and organised protests against conditions of employment and for their rights as employees. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider the need for reasoned amendments to the Bill.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, just like the Employment Acts of 1980, 1982 and 1984, this Bill is an additional onslaught on trade unionism and the trade unions. It is similar to the attack on local government which caused such turmoil and turbulence throughout the country in all local authorities. It is a massive retaliation against them all because a few have abused their powers. So it is with the trade unions. Therefore we have witnessed a constant, non-stop rolling programme of legislative interference with the role, responsibilities and activities of the trade unions.
Let me say quite frankly that the legislation has not been all bad and the reaction of rank and file trade unionists has proved it. However, as in past trade union reform legislation, the bad gets through with the good. Clause 3 of this Bill is a classic example, to which I shall return later.
I preface my remarks on the Bill with a few general observations on the background to this type of legislation. There is no doubt that major changes have been taking place within the industrial world and the activities of unions, their leaders and especially their membership, the trade unionists. Starting with the winter of discontent (and undoubtedly that was the springboard of the Tory assault on trade unionism) I remember the Labour Government being riddled with worry and acutely aware of the damage that the waves of strikes throughout that winter of 1978–79 were doing to their general election prospects. We were plunged into despair. We had no answer to it. The tabloid newspapers made a meal out of every teardrop story that fell on their desks. This series of major industrial disputes certainly paved the way for a Tory victory. Since then the Tories have gone out of their way to punish and in particular to weaken the power of trade union leaders and the trade unions.
The Tories therefore have promised trade union reform—and have we not had it, my Lords! It was a major plank in their 1979 manifesto, which pledged government funds for postal ballots to determine strike action and union elections and to curb the closed shop pressure on individual trade unionists. Mass picketing was no longer to be immune from civil liability; and coercive trade union recruitment was to lose its legal immunity. These were in a package of trade union reforms which had mass appeal in the wake of the winter of discontent.
In 1979, 64 per cent. of trade unionists voted anti-Labour. In 1980 therefore we had the first anti-trade union Bill, followed by another in 1982 removing further legal immunities from the trade unions. All this happened between 1979 and 1983, stripping trade unions of legal immunities and laying them bare before the courts. Yet in the 1983 general election the Tories lost only 1 per cent. of the electorate compared with 1979, and we lost 10 per cent. With this fresh mandate, obviously with no rancour from the rank and file trade unionists, and with still approximately 64 per cent. voting anti-Labour, the Tories pressed on.
In 1984 there was another anti-trade union Bill with provisions for secret ballots for the trade union governing bodies. Trade unions could remain

977
immune from legal action on strikes only if they held secret and properly constructed ballots. The membership were td vote at regular intervals on whether their trade unions should spend money on party political matters. The Government then began attacking Labour Party finances through trade union legislation.
By 1987 many changes had taken place. There is now an entrenched right not to belong to a trade union. Picketing restrictions and secondary action have further limited trade union power, as has the requirement for secret ballots before industrial action is taken.
The projected legislation of the 1980 and 1982 Employment Acts was in the Tory's 1979 manifesto; and the projected legislation for the 1984 Trade Union Act was in the 1983 manifesto. Yet so many trade unionists were indifferent to those Tory manifesto commitments; or alternatively they supported them. There is no doubt that there has been a great change in the attitude of trade unionists. They no longer heed their trade union leaders' views on political matters; and they believe in the widening of democracy within the trade union movement.
Tied to the trade unions, as we obviously are, we have always been open to this attack by the Tories, and they have exploited it to the full. There is a lesson to learn from this. If the trade unions want the Labour Party returned to government, the leaders should ensure that small pressure groups of unionists should not be determining our policy, egged on by some trade union leaders' extremists views, because their views are not shared by the majority of the membership. We cannot win unless they return to our fold. The percentage of trade unionists voting anti-Labour at each of the last three elections is the point.
It could be spite by Her Majesty's Government; it could be pique; or it could be a purposeful attempt to tame the unions. But not much of this legislation could so easily have been put on the statute book if the rank and file trade unionists had been seething with disgust and outrage. Therefore one has to recognise that, as they see it, the trade unionists, the widening of democracy within the trade union movement—and that has been part of the Government's presentation—has been generally welcomed.
If democratisation of trade unionism is the goal then this Bill is likely to undermine much of what the Government have achieved. They have to admit that this fourth piece of trade union legislation has aroused anger right across industry as well as among the trade unions. Most of it is irrelevant and unnecessary after the battering that the unions and employers' organisations have received. Industrial relations are not to be improved with this piece of legislation.
Above all, apart from the Bill being hastily conceived and bad legislation, Clause 3 will be ruinous to all that the Government have achieved. It is designed to create industrial anarchy, to impose on a union a secret ballot for a strike and then encourage those who were in the minority of a properly conducted democratic and legal ballot to ignore the result, flout the mass membership's wishes and go to work. This is industrial nonsense. Employers will be
978
fraught with anxiety. Should they or should they not receive the strike breakers and encourage the scabs, as they would be branded? What of the animosity, the hatred, the sending to Coventry of those who went to work?
Where is the democratisation of the trade unions—the main plank of the Government's trade union reforms—if they smash the main plank and destroy the key principle of our democratic society? Will they not also destroy the legitimacy of the secret ballot? This Bill has few friends in industry. Clause 3 has no friends at all, and especially no Conservative friends within industry.
I draw the attention of noble Lords to the point of view of the Institute of Personnel Management. After all, it has to manage this legislation. On the right to go to work despite a strike call it says:
"This is a far cry from action to ensure that trade unions are democratically run."
The CBI, a strong supporter of Her Majesty's Government—at least its views should be heeded—said this:
"The principal argument against the proposal is that it could undermine the balloting process itself, so productively encouraged by the 1984 Trade Union Act …CBI believes it would be right, for the time being at least, to take this proposal no further … In reaching this conclusion we have had in mind the fact that if individuals dislike the activities of their trade union it is open to them—and will be more so than hitherto, following the ending of legal protection for the closed shop—to withdraw their membership.".
One therefore has no friends in the CBI.
The Freedom Association looks at it from an entirely different angle. It said:
"We believe that to extend individuals' rights in this area along the lines suggested by the Government would be to diminish their rights as union members".
What about the British Institute of Management? It too will be very much involved. These are the people at the workplace who will determine whether there is industrial anarchy or not, as I mentioned earlier. It said:
"BIM therefore views Government plans to ban trade unions from disciplining members who refuse to abide by the majority vote as undemocratic and possibly obstructive to good industrial relations".
What about the Industrial Society, representing so many members within industry as a whole? It made an objective assessment, as it very often does, on trade union legislation. It said:
"We are very concerned that if the individual union member has a legal right to circumvent a properly taken majority decision and thus may be held to have no responsibility towards his/her union, there will be no reason why anyone should take the balloting process seriously".
Above all, what about the Conservative Trade Unionists National Committee and the way in which it has informed Her Majesty's Government what it thinks about Clause 3 of the Bill? After all, it should be the closest adviser to this Government. It says:
"The CTU does not support the proposals. … Where fair and proper ballots have been conducted amongst those concerned it is considered that the majority view should be accepted by all concerned and breach of this principle is inconsistent with continued membership of the union".
Those are the views of those in management and industry and of friends, followers and supporters of Her Majesty's Government.
Finally, in fairness to them, trade unions should not be denied the right to discipline their own members who refuse to take part in industrial action

979
which has been endorsed by a majority of the members in a secret ballot. Unity is the only strength that a trade union possesses and it has become more precious than ever in the wake of all the trade union legislation. They have the right to insist on a degree of solidarity from those who are outvoted.
Trade unions are already punch-drunk and reeling from all the legislation. The Bill, particularly Clause 3, is now kicking them when they are down. It will make trade unionism unworkable and create anarchy in the workplace. Employers are already aghast at the repercussions they visualise in their establishments if Clause 3 becomes operative. If that clause at least is not withdrawn all the support that the Government have received for their trade union reforming zeal will evaporate and the national consensus will be shattered. It is patently unfair, it is obviously undemocratic and, above all, it is a dangerous principle to establish. It is an encouragement to everyone to opt out of all democratic decisions, whether in trade unions or other national organisations, including the state. Clause 3 is far too dangerous for democrats to contemplate. For that reason above all I shall oppose the Bill.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mason, was a splendid one to hear and to follow. I must apologise, particularly to the noble Lords who are to wind up, because I may have to leave before the debate concludes due to a longstanding engagement.
For once, the views of the CBI, the BIM and the IPM, quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Mason, are not the same as mine. As your Lordships know, I am often guided by the CBI. I am a member of the British Institute of Management and a fellow of the Institute of Personnel Managers. I disagree with their attitude and assessment of the Bill. They take a purely industrial relations point of view. The basis on which I judge Part I of the Bill is the degree to which it ensures and improves the effectiveness of British industry in worldwide competition.
As indicated by the Minister when introducing the Bill, great strides have been made in improving competitiveness and productivity and in reducing unit costs during the last eight years. Much of that has been achieved thanks to the step-by-step rationalisation of industrial relations law. I look to the Bill to be one more step in that process, albeit a slower step—1980, 1982, 1984 and a four year gap to 1988—but I think that that is right. Although we have had improvements in industrial efficiency, we started from a very low base in 1979. It will be in nobody's interest, least of all those in industrial employ, to rest in any way on our incipient laurels. There are no grounds for complacency about our position in the competitive world market; there are unlikely to be any such grounds for many years to come.
It is perhaps appropriate to mention that the more the industrial relations legislation of this country is rationalised, the more important it is that management exercises increasing care in persuading all its workpeople of the need for any and every proposed work practice improvement. Recent
980
examples of the apparent lack of such care in certain sections of the motor industry are a sad setback to the previously steady progress of all British industrial efficiency. I pray that there will be renewed—not relaxed—restraint of wage settlements in the future. There is no substitute for courageous, thoughtful management.
With those underlying thoughts I should now like to deal with the Bill. I believe that the clauses which may arouse doubts in your Lordships' minds—and which may have done so already—are Clause 3 (the right of individuals not to be unjustifiably disciplined) and Clause 12 (the Scargill curtailment clause). As we have already heard, noble Lords opposite wish to challenge several other clauses but I propose to concentrate on those two.
With regard to Clause 3, about which the CBI, the IPM, the BIM, and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all, have doubts—as stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, whose speech I thought splendid though I did not agree with every word—I can understand the argument that subsection (3) covers such a wide field that any majority decision by union members will never be as free and as effective as before. However, I cannot understand the argument that a strike would necessarily be ineffective. That would depend on the size of the majority and the nature of the work. Sometimes companies may find themselves paying full wages to people for whom they cannot find work because the factories have had to be shut down as so many people are on strike. At the same time, trade unions may find themselves being spared the payment of strike pay to some members who are fulfilling their contracts of employment while, at the same time, an effective strike is being fully maintained. Altogether, it is not quite so destructive as noble Lords have sought to suggest.
On the other hand, Clause 3 has the benefit of further reducing the opportunities for trade unions legally to bully their members. If noble Lords had the time to study and read through the debates on earlier industrial relations legislation, they would discover that it is the bullying of members, and sometimes of employers—especially medium and small employers—by caucuses of trade unions in the 1960s and 1970s (of which I had first-hand knowledge) that aroused my fury and has ever since ensured my continuing support for this kind of legislation.
As one of my noble friends suggested to me outside the Chamber, it seems that, with the final demise of the closed shop under Clause 10, the purposes of Clause 3 would be achieved by a union member, who wished to fulfil his contract of employment during a strike, resigning from the union as soon as the strike was called. With Clause 3 enacted, the union would stand a chance of at least retaining numbers and the subscriptions of the members——
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will allow me to intervene. By not resigning, the member concerned would keep the various other rights which the union may have granted. For example, he may have been a subscribing member to an injury fund.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, that is right. But he has that option. I am less than enamoured with

981
Clause 12. For reasons which I shall explain, I find myself in much agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, notwithstanding the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford. While I appreciate the possibility of other trade union leaders in similar positions trying to follow the example of Scargill and retaining authority within a union without periodical reaffirmation of their right to do so, I wonder whether it is perpetually worth trying to pursue Scargill with legislation. I suspect that it merely gives him extra credibility which is otherwise constantly reducing; possibly even on the other side of the Iron Curtain.
Although there may be cases to which the intentions of Clause 12 are relevant, there are, as the noble Baroness and other noble Lords have said, a great number of trade unions with officials of importance to whom subsection (6A)(b) would not apply and who will never be bombastic, bullying or devious, let alone the darlings of Cuba or the Soviets. Indeed, the noble Baroness. Lady Turner, described such people very well and I know many others personally. I hope the Government will find some way of amending Clause 12 to ensure that such officials are not caught by it. After all, most of your Lordships would not like to be required suddenly to undergo the rigours of election to this House every five years. Some of our most useful Members have never been elected to anything; they would hate the experience. The same applies to some important trade union officials. I might add, with the greatest respect to noble Lords who have sat in another place, that elections do not always produce the best people for everything.
In conclusion, I look briefly at Part II of the Bill. It has been my sad experience that except for the brave experiment of the Industrial Training Act 1964, successive Conservative Governments have made an increasing mess of their contribution to industrial training. That was especially so in the 1973 Act when they introduced the Manpower Services Commission. Of itself, and limited to jobcentres and the training of people not in employment or not covered by industrial training boards, the commission had an important role. What was disastrous was giving the commission oversight of the, by then, experienced training boards and worse still, giving it the responsibility for paying ITB running costs.
Up to that point, industrial training boards were learning, with varying degrees of awareness, that their allegiance in encouraging good training lay entirely with the customers who paid them. Once they were paid by the MSC, the allegiance had to be shared. The single mindedness of the ITBs was lost and their value seriously diminished. It was no wonder that over half of them were later wound up. Sadly, under this Bill, I understand that the overseeing and paying functions of the new training commission with regard to the few remaining ITBs still exist. It is probably too late to restore the independence of ITBs from central government but I wish we could.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, at the start of his speech, as I understood him, he said that in contrast to the CBI, the BIM and
982
the IPM, who were judging this Bill on the basis of its effect on industrial relations, he supported it because of its likely effect on our international competitiveness. Does he not agree that improved industrial relations are the best possible spur to that competitiveness?
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, yes. I see the point that the noble Lord makes. The fact is that you must have industrial relations which work. As I see it, the balance of power as between management and trade unions has had to be adjusted so as to ensure that the managers can manage. They were not able to manage in 1979 as the noble Lord must know because he was involved at that time. I was a manager in those days and before, and it was quite impossible to manage properly. People can manage properly now and there are all sorts of examples. The Bill takes us a step further in making sure that we can do that.
The noble Lord may also have noted that I made the important point that as the industrial relations legislation is rationalized—I believe we arc coming to the end of it myself, but I do not know—it can only work if the managers really manage. I suspect that they have forgotten that in order to do that they must take their workforce into their confidence and work closely with them. They must not make abrupt changes of any sort; they have to bring people along together. When that happens, we have the improved prosperity and productivity and all the matters which make us competitive in world markets.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I should like to begin by saying a few words about the current economic context. The Minister who introduced the debate tried to do that to a limited extent. My difficulty is that it was impossible to recognise anything corresponding to economic reality in what he said, especially when he referred to our recent experience as the best economic performance since the war. My perusal of the facts, and that of other commentators, certainly leads to a different view. In particular, so far as concerns this Bill one must never forget that unemployment is still at a very high level by any post-war standards. It may well be that the Minister will say, "Well, unemployment is falling". However, the extent to which it is falling is much more a measure of the extent to which the Government forced it up in the first place. Indeed, one is reminded of the alleged benefits of self-flagellation or beating one's head against a brick wall: it feels so much better when one leaves off. That is certainly what we are observing with the current decline in the rates of unemployment.
However, the broader economic environment is not that good. We have achieved something that most of us thought was impossible: we have a balance of payments deficit on current account despite North Sea oil and the fact that the economy is nowhere near full employment. I say nothing of the enormous deficit on manufacturing trade. We have also achieved something which one finds quite amazing: that despite the circumstances, there are actually renewed fears of inflation. Perhaps I may also mention in the context of this Bill that if there has been this remarkable and permanent productivity

983
breakthrough that we are told about, I should like to know why Ministers are making speeches warning us against wage increases. There would be no danger of large wage increases if this productivity breakthough had occurred.
Although it is not my main theme, I should also like to say a few words about the infamous Clause 3. I agree with noble Lords who have spoken earlier that the difficulty is to make up one's mind whether it is ludicrous or pernicious; perhaps it is both. However, it seems to me that if decisions taken by trade union members are taken by ballot, it is surely right that all members agree to abide by the outcome. One can of course make the obvious exception, which would be rare, of conscience; but this clause is not about conscience but about not abiding by majority rule in the first place. Apart from anything else, it is a logical point. If the rule is a decision rule of majority decision, then that is what it means. It means that the decision has been taken and you agree to abide by it. If you do not accept that, you are making a logical error. Apart from that, of course, there would be no coherence in the activities of a trade union. To all intents and purposes, to pass this clause would be severely damaging to the trade union operating as a coherent whole.
I wonder whether noble Lords who support this clause appreciate, and whether the Government appreciate, that they are creating a precedent and how damaging a clause of this kind may turn out to be in due course for democratic processes of all kinds. I should be interested, when we come to the Education Bill and possibly discuss matters like civics lessons, to have an explanation from noble Lords on the Government Benches as to why majority rule is such a good thing in democracies but somehow does not seem to have quite that compelling quality when it comes to trade unions.
However, that is not the main subject that I want to discuss. I wish to speak on the later part of the Bill referring to training and also on the social security benefits aspect of that. It has been apparent for a very long time (and many of us have said so and have written on this point) that our labour force is seriously undertrained. There is no room for disagreement on that. It is also true that those with less training get the worst jobs and are much more likely to experience unemployment. The simple rule of thumb for example, even at the present time, is that 80 per cent. of the unemployed are unskilled—and needlessly so—while 80 per cent. of the vacancies on offer have a significant skill requirement. That represents a large part of what is wrong with our country at present.
During the great and successful era of full employment which I still believe is the greatest achievement of our country on the domestic side in this century (and I am always amazed when people denigrate it) many of us argued that it was idiotic that the normal path for workers who lost their jobs was into unemployment; though it was to be hoped that they would go back into work in similar employment. We argued then that it would be much better that those who lost their jobs should undertake some training, as long as they did not need all the time that
984
was then made available to look for new jobs, which generally they did not. Let me add that the proposition that it would be much better to come from work into training rather than work into unemployment applied just as much to those with skills because the occasion might be taken of updating and improving their skills, which is just as important for them as for the unskilled.
Those of us who looked into this many years ago and made proposals in this area differed in key respects to what the Government have to offer now, both in the Minister's Statement on training this week and in what seems to be implied in the Bill. Of course—and one cannot emphasise this too much—we presupposed an era of full employment. Consideration of reforms of all types was given when full employment was taken for granted. Certainly the scale of unemployment we have experienced under this Government, as I have argued before, is simply impossible. I was unable to predict that it would happen and I still do not understand fully why it has been allowed to continue for so long.
We assumed full employment, and in conditions of full employment a great many rational things can be undertaken which cannot otherwise be done. Secondly, we took it for granted—and I should be interested to hear further argument on this—that while training and retraining was to be encouraged it would be of little use either to employer or to employee if it were made obligatory. It then followed that if we were to improve the quality of our labour force and take the training side seriously there should be incentives to train rather than threats to take away benefits if one did not train.
In that connection, let me say in terms of the tone in which we will discuss this aspect of the Bill that it should never be forgotten, taking the example of a well-known survey of unemployed school-leavers, that overwhelmingly (I am speaking about 90 per cent. plus) they all said that they would much rather be in work than on benefit. They are not malingerers, though they may be made into malingerers by a system which does not find them work; but that is a different matter.
All that relates to something which I regard as much more fundamental, and again it is a question that underlies this Bill. My view of unemployment was, and still is, that it is attributable to the failure of the system of free markets in which, largely, we operate; and a failure which intelligent government intervention can rectify. However, this Government, or some of their supporters, appear to have a different view of the nature of unemployment. They seem to see it as being due to the deficiencies of the unemployed themselves who must somehow learn to mend their ways and in particular must be willing to work for less than a living wage.
Given that, let us consider, as other recent developments suggest we ought to consider, the emerging role of the YTS. The YTS is intrinsically, in my view, a good thing; but the training must be worthwhile. That means that it cannot be satisfactorily undertaken on the cheap. The training places must be first class. It is well worth remarking that a country like Sweden—which is very much more successful economically than we are in terms of

985
the standard of living it provides for its people, particularly young people, and has much lower unemployment rates than anything we seem to be aiming at—invests two-and-a-half times the amount of resources per trainee that we do in this country. In other words, Sweden does not do it on the cheap.
The other aspect of training is that it must be perceived to be worthwhile by young persons. Therefore, in no circumstances must it be forced upon them. If that is not a view which noble Lords will take from me, certainly they ought to take it from any employer who has any experience whatever of training. Encouragement and freedom of choice is what matters, not threats. Above all, in all work in this field of training it must be made clear that at the end a job is available. What is lacking in this legislation, and in so much else that is happening at present, is that it is not seen that the way to view this is as a form of contract. It seems to me that the young person, the teenager, should agree voluntarily and should have the incentive to go on such a scheme and should do as well as possible. That is his or her side of the contract. On the other side, what is required from the Government is a job guarantee scheme for young people. In other words, the Government are speaking about the guarantee of training places and what is really required is a guarantee of training plus a job.
I am not suggesting that, given such a system, matters would always work out as planned. Obviously there must be procedures for putting things right and perhaps even for assigning blame. However, I am suggesting that a constructive scheme of the kind I have in mind would be a considerable improvement on what appears to be on offer.
Before coming to my final remarks I should like to mention one other aspect which worries me about the Bill. Training is surely a good thing, but I hope your Lordships will forgive the trivial remark that so is education. Again, to those of us who have been involved and have thought a lot about it, it has always seemed to be silly that social security grants and benefits are available to unemployed young people and that means-tested grants are available to students in higher education, but virtually nothing is on offer to those in sixth forms and in further education colleges. Happily, within the context of this Bill there is the so-called 21-hour rule which enables some young people to pursue courses in, say, further education colleges so long as it is still believed that they meet the availability for work rule.
That 21-hour rule seems to be extremely sensible. It is particularly sensible, with few jobs around, if the availability to work criterion is not pressed too hard because it is clearly better for young people receiving the benefit to be pursuing some course rather than sitting around doing nothing. What worries me about the present set of proposals, on which I should like to have some reassurance from the Minister, is that they do not in any way destroy all that. Indeed, my own view in terms of the way this is developing is that it would be infinitely more sensible if a whole range of further education courses were listed as alternatives to the YTS and regarded as meeting whatever criteria have to be met for that purpose.
986
In conclusion, this Second Reading debate which we are having this evening is taking place a few weeks before the Budget. We are told that the economy is in good shape and we are also told that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has vast sums at his disposal. Nothing is more amusing to those of us who read the financial pages than to see that sums in terms of billions of pounds appear to be available today compared with yesterday, and that one is not to assume there will be quite so much tomorrow, and so on. I really cannot keep up with it all so I prefer to be rather more primitive and say that it looks as though a lot is available.
From reading the newspapers we are led to believe that the Chancellor wishes to return these vast sums to taxpayers, and notably to better-off taxpayers. If he does that what he really will be doing is adding to the spending power of taxpayers. That spending power certainly will be devoted to adding to the consumer boom and much of the consumer boom is itself added to imports. Therefore what the Chancellor will be doing, as I have pointed out before, is creating an extremely expensive job creation scheme for foreign workers. I emphasise my internationalism by saying I am not against foreign workers, but equally I have a certain nationalism and I believe that the Chancellor should occasionally think of our own people, particularly our youngsters.
The Chancellor has the opportunity to finance a massive and sophisticated programme of training, re-training and job creation from which we will all benefit. He will never have a better chance to help the whole nation.
6.11 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the speech of my noble friend Lord Peston, who said very wise things about what has been described previously as a silly Bill, an unnecessary Bill and a dangerous Bill. As far as I am concerned I subscribe to that general condemnation.
We look at what the Minister and his friends have said, that this is part of an ongoing process and that it is a step-by-step attempt to return the balance of power within trade unions from their executives to their members, and we are asked to believe that those who use those words have the genuine best interests of the trade unions at heart. That is hypocrisy. When I hear people telling us that they are concerned about the impact of the bad name of trade unions on, for instance, the future electoral prospects of the Labour Party, I believe that to be hypocrisy. I believe that much of what has been said and what is contained in the Bill is motivated by malice and spite. I am not for one moment going to accept that this is the end of any process that the Government have in mind.
It is the fourth major attempt. When we look at what the Government have achieved in previous attempts, we find that in a previous Bill it was felt necessary to say to the members of a trade union, "You must now go through the process of a ballot in order to have a political fund". A great many people rested on the premise that when the ballot took place the political nature of the manner in which trade unions were being led or misled would be revealed. We know that given the opportunity the

987
overwhelming majority if not the totality of trade union ballots resulted in confirmation of that desire. Not only that but the creation of a number of political funds occurred in unions that previously did not have them.
Then for a period the Government rested on the view that what one needed to do was to make sure that no industrial action took place unless it was validated and authorised in a way laid down by a ballot prior to the event. All industrial action—I must be careful—the vast majority of industrial action which takes place is validated by the Government's legislation. Now we have this latest attempt to deal with what the friends of the trade union movement on the other side of the Chamber are saying is required. It is not asked for by the trade unions or their leadership and neither is it asked for at their annual meetings. But by some divine providence the members of the Government and those behind them say "We know best".
We have heard from this side of the Chamber what I believe to be a series of very impressive speeches by men and women who claim as their prime credential the fact that they are trade unionists. It is not that they have been members of a professional body but they have been members of a trade union for years and years and years. They have been members not only on the shopfloor but also in an executive capacity. My credentials are that I have not only been a member of a trade union for 46 years but I am still a member and I pay my dues every year. I will continue to do that as long as I have breath left in my body because a trade union is more than a club. A trade union is the birthright of every worker in this country.
The Government have legislated to such an extent that now that the raison d' etre has been removed one does not need to be a member of a trade union in order to get employment. The closed shop has been radically altered. The Government are not content with that because they have produced a Bill the title of which is the greatest misnomer of this Session. It is called an Employment Bill. They are now going to make sure that those who share the view that a strike ought not to take place, even though there has been democratic election, will have a reserve position. They win if the ballot goes in their favour; they win if the ballot goes against them. It is nonsense and hypocrisy.
I believe that ordinary people outside the House realise that they have a Government who are determined to weigh the odds against ordinary people and in that sense trade unionists are ordinary people. They have been singled out by this Government and they have had visited upon them rules and regulations which are not visited upon any other comparable group. My noble friend Lord Mason said that trade unions are battered and punch-drunk. In my view that is too strong. They are frustrated and they are angry. If those on the other side of the Chamber believe that which they have done and seek to do will weaken and bring down trade unions from their present strong position, I simply say to them, "Watch out". The impact and the effect of what the Government are doing to trade
988
unions and trade unionists is that they are becoming even more angry. They will treat with contempt the words of the Minister and his friends who say that they are making these changes in the best interests of trade unions and trade unionists.
More than once Members opposite have said, "We are now in the strongest economic position yet in the last seven years". Tell that to the extra 2 million people who are now unemployed by comparison with the day when this Government came into office. Tell that to the workers in the Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers with whom I have a connection and to the wages councils, which at one time provided them with protection but which have now been weakened and frustrated by this Government. Tell those people whose minimum basic wage is £83 to £84 per week in London for a 40-hour week. Tell those who have been clobbered by this Government in the realm of housing and the Social Security Bill. Tell that to the women who prior to April 1st of this year would have had free milk for their children and now they will be denied it. Tell that to the totality of those I call the working people of this country, and then stand up somewhere other than in your Lordships' House and tell them that we are enjoying the finest economic renaissance that this country has ever seen. It is a sham and an hypocrisy.
Let us look at the advice that the Government have given. I happen to be a fellow of the British Institute of Management. It is said that the Government will not take the advice of trade unions or trade unionists. But will they take it from people who profess at times to support the generality of the Government's advice? I refer to the CBI, the BIM and the Institute of Personnel Management. They are attempting to save the Government from making industrial relations in this country worse. We are not talking about putting words on the statute book. We are talking about making legislation meaningful and sensible.
In my view what the Government are seeking to do is tantamount to undoing a great deal of good in the general relationships which have built up over the past few years. I speak in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, who in 1977, 1978 and 1979 did a great deal to seek to persuade the trade unions that it was time that certain of their practices were altered. Sadly, the voice was not listened to then. The Government have driven through this House and another place legislation which has forced trade unions to be much more realistic. Trade unions in 1988 are realistic and recognise their responsibilities. The calumnies which have been visited upon them by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, in his call for such legislation were a smear of the worst possible kind.
Most trade unions—I would say all trade Unions—are conscious of the dangers not least because of the work that the noble Lord did in the 1950s and 1960s in respect of the ETU. They recognise the dangers and deal with them quickly but they deal with them within their own organisations. The trade union movement does not want this Bill. It is a contemptible Bill and we shall attempt to improve it as it goes through the House.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I have so often heard the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, speak in a constructive vein on various subjects, and I hope he will not mind my saying that I found his speech just now rather a disappointment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am very pleased.
Lord Renton: My Lords, knowing his great experience of trade unions, I was hoping that we would have some more relevant criticism of the contents of the Bill. Perhaps he will forgive me if I do not follow him much in what he has said except to remind him that the Bill is mainly a manifesto commitment on which the Government were elected and it was preceded by the well-known and very constructive Green Paper.
When the 1980, 1982 and 1984 Acts were before the House, I was among those—and my noble friend Lord Whitelaw will remember—who complained that they did not go quite far enough towards saving the nation from the damage done to the economy and to the public service by strikes, whether official or unofficial, legal or illegal, and certainly did not go far enough towards restoring the powers which Conservatives in the last century intended that trade union members should have. Important improvements which the Government were wise enough to accept were made by your Lordships to the 1984 Act. I am happy to say, nostalgically, that Cross-Bench and especially Members of the Alliance were glad to join some of us on the Back Benches in making one or two important changes against the advice of the Government. Not even the support of the Front Bench opposite for the Government on one occasion was enough to save them. It therefore saddened and surprised me very much to hear the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, today when he revealed that he seems to have lost his zeal for reform in this matter.
The combined effect of those three Acts has been to reduce the number of strikes. We had fewer strikes in 1985–86 than at any time since the last war. Strengthening the law relating to trade unions must have played some part in the economic revival which has undoubtedly taken place. I have listened to every speech from the other side of the House except one, and I must apologise for missing that one. There were speeches from those who are experienced as officials of trade unions and with great knowledge of what they are talking about, and no doubt great feeling, but it was rather a reassurance to me to hear at least two noble Lords opposite, former Cabinet Ministers, saying in effect that we must accept the situation reached by the 1980, 1982 and 1984 Acts. Indeed, I am happy to say that there has been no real assault on them on this occasion. However, we on this side of the House feel—and it was clear from our manifesto—that much remains to be done to safeguard the interests and rights of members of trade unions. Those are my principal reasons for welcoming the Bill.
Much has been said about Clause 3, and I should like to refer to it. In what I thought was an admirable
990
reply to the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter stressed the fact that trade union members are entitled to their own loyalties in addition to loyalty to the union. My noble friend referred to loyalty to one's family and loyalty even to one's employer. I would say that there is a broader loyalty still which would entitle members of trade unions not to strike even when they find themselves in a minority after a well-conducted secret ballot. For example, there is the loyalty of teachers to children, the loyalty of nurses to patients and the loyalty of railway workers to passengers. One could multiply the situations that can arise when, making due allowance for the majority opinion in the trade union, nevertheless members could feel strongly enough that they would prefer to go on working rather than let other people down. That should be remembered in the context of Clause 3.
Ballots already play an important part under the present law, especially since the passing of Sections 10 and 11 of the 1984 Act. I refer to ballots with regard to the election of executive committees of unions and with regard to strikes. In Clause 1 and Clauses 12 to 17 the Bill extends the requirements for the holding of ballots and strengthens the law with regard to the manner of holding them. We should surely remember that no ballot and no election can be said to be fair or effective unless it is held on the basis of a register of trade union members which is both complete and accurate.
Although this is primarily an administrative exercise, the compiling of proper registers is fundamental to the operation of this part of the law relating to ballots and elections. I should therefore be glad if, when my noble friend replies to the debate, he could let us know what progress has been made in recent years towards the compiling of complete and accurate registers. Of course each member must be clearly identified by name, which may not be a very easy matter. In South Wales there are about half a dozen surnames which are frequently repeated. In the part of Scotland which I frequent, where I have an interest, so many people are called either Thomson or McKee, and McKee can be spelt in two different ways. There must be accuracy and proper identification. I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, looking at me somewhat quizzically. I do not think that on this occasion he could disagree with what I am saying.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I was venturing to think that while there is a multiplicity of Joneses there is a paucity of patronymics in the Principality.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I will not challenge that.
Besides clearly identifying the name, there is the problem of the disclosure of the address. The last and most unfortunate miners' strike a few years ago was accompanied by the victimisation of people who did not strike. This brings us back to Clause 3. The way to get round this question of not disclosing to all and sundry the addresses of members of trade unions is for the union, no doubt with the help of an outside agency like the Electoral Reform Society, to have a private register on which addresses are written, but both on that private register and on the public register there should be a number for each union

991
member. I understand this is already being done by some unions, and I should be grateful if my noble friend could tell us how much is known by the department about this matter.
The draftsmen did not have an easy task in preparing this Bill. Some of the clauses are complex and detailed and not totally easy to follow. I am generally opposed to too much detail, as some noble and learned Lords know, but on this Bill a large amount of detail is unavoidable; otherwise there would be too much left to the courts to decide. No doubt in Committee we shall be trying to improve the clarity of several clauses. Therefore, I shall refrain from making particular comments at this stage. However, I should very much like to welcome especially Clauses 18 to 20 dealing with the appointment of the Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members.
I was astonished to hear a noble Lord opposite criticising that new development. It can only be beneficial to members of trade unions if we are anxious about the protection of their rights. It is really giving to the trade unions not only an ombudsman but one who is able to help them with regard to asserting their legal rights in the courts. Surely that is a development which should be welcomed by everybody.
With this Bill the Conservative Government are carrying on their good work for trade union members. It started when trade unions were legalised in the last century. It is a brave Bill and a sound one. I wish it success. I do not see why it should be considered as the last word in some future Parliament. I do not say necessarily in this one; we may need a Bill to deal further with the really fantastic position, entirely an anachronism in my view, of immunity in tort, especially as it is applied, and to make it unlawful for those in the public service to go on strike too easily.
6.35 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I find this a deeply unattractive Bill. It is partisan; it is punitive; it is disproportionate. By disproportionate I mean that it is an excessive reaction to what it addresses. So I ask whether its real purpose is not to improve industrial relations but to settle old scores with the unions. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, has said that he wants relevant criticisms of the contents of the Bill. In this short speech I propose to try to meet his requirements.
There are three themes in the Bill. They run through it as a tarnished thread. First, there is the further emasculation of the capacity of trade unions to protect and defend the interests of their members. No longer is there to be a single ballot of all those whom it is reasonable to believe will be called on to take industrial action where an employer has more than one place of work. Instead, separate ballots are to be held at each place of work and a majority must be obtained at each, unless those to be called out are in the same grade or have the same occupational description. Not only are unions to be subject to minute and detailed requirements, any breach of
992
which can make a ballot invalid, but they must now obtain a majority at each plant or factory. The object is to divide the workforce so as to make it more difficult for it to take effective and cohesive industrial action.
There is a crowning irony in all this. Other noble Lords have called attention to it. The very same Bill which adds to the already stringent requirements for a ballot on industrial action licenses a dissident minority to disregard the result of that ballot when the majority is in favour of industrial action. Is it not the ultimate cynicism to regulate minutely the conduct of a ballot in the strictest terms and then to allow a minority to cock a snook at the outcome of the ballot, even though it is in complete compliance with the whole gamut of statutory restrictions? As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, not only does that stand logic and reason on its head but, as my noble friend Lord Mason of Barnsley emphasised, it subverts the basic principle of democracy. This Bill lays down a new notion of democracy. It is that the will of the majority prevails unless the majority is in favour of industrial action. If it is, then the minority can ignore it with complete impunity. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, spoke of loyalty. For democrats the loyalty that overrides all other loyalties is loyalty to the will of the majority.
I cite two further examples of the cynicism that underlies the treatment of industrial action in this Bill. Crown servants who hold office or employment on terms that do not constitute a contract of employment are to be deemed to have a contract of employment for certain purposes. That is Clause 29. Your Lordships may be forgiven for thinking that those purposes might include the legal protection or security of employment of Crown servants, but that is not so. Crown employees are not to be deemed to have contracts so that they can enjoy the same contractual rights and statutory protections as any other group of employees. On the contrary, they are to be deemed to have contracts of employment solely for the purposes of allowing damages claims to be brought against their trade union. They are not deemed to have contracts of employment for the purpose of exercising the same rights as any other group of employees in this country have against their employer.
Another example of the democratic principle stood on its head is the provisions in Clauses 10 and 11 about the closed shop. Even if a closed shop is voluntarily agreed between an employer who regards it as in his commercial interest and a trade union and even if it is overwhelmingly supported in a ballot by as many as 80 per cent. of the workforce affected or by over 85 per cent. of those voting, it cannot be enforced and any dismissal of an employee is to be deemed to be automatically unfair. So the wishes of both the employer and the overwhelming majority of the workforce in a properly conducted ballot cannot be enforced. Closed shop agreements can be made by huge democratic majorities but they cannot be enforced.
The second theme that underlies this Bill is its unprecedented degree of regulation of the internal affairs of trade unions. Contrast this with the regime of self-regulation advocated so fervently for the City

993
and its financial institutions. Unions are now to be required to open their accounting records to inspection, without any safeguards against abuse of confidentiality by the member, as distinct from his accountant, or other misuse of any sensitive information. So unions are placed in a uniquely disadvantageous position compared with companies or any other associations.
It does not stop there. Unions alone among all other employers are denied the right to decide in the circumstances of particular cases whether they should pay the fine of an official for an offence committed in the course of his employment. That is Clause 8. If a union decides in accordance with its own rules and democratic provisions to pay the fine and not to bring proceedings to recover the sum from its official, a member can seek an order authorising him to bring proceedings on the union's behalf and at the union's expense against the official on the basis that the union was unreasonable. The Secretary of State is to have power to decide what offences are to be within the ambit of this provision.
The interference does not stop there. Not only does this Bill now prescribe which officers of the union are to be elected. That is Clause 12. It prescribes the methods of election to be used both for union elections and for political fund ballots, although there is no evidence whatever that postal ballots are in practice any more democratic than workplace ballots.
The ultimate insult is that trade unions alone of all other organisations can no longer be trusted to conduct their own political fund ballots or their own elections. They alone must appoint an outside scrutineer to supervise these ballots. They are to be singled out in this way from every body corporate and voluntary association in this country. Codes of practice are to be drafted setting out what are considered to he desirable practices for trade unions in the conduct of ballots and elections, and these codes may be taken into account in any proceedings against trade unions. That is Clause 17. The internal rules and procedures of the union, democratically determined by its members and open to democratic change by its members, are now to be subordinated to this new regime of interference in the internal affairs of trade unions.
The third theme running through this Bill is that it lays down a charter for every maverick and malcontent who wants to harass a union and disrupt its proper functioning. Let me cite three positive examples. First, a member of the union is not to be disciplined for asserting that the union or any official or member has contravened or is proposing to contravene a union rule or any other agreement or any statute or rule of law. It matters not that the assertion is utterly without foundation; that it is made negligently or recklessly without any proper investigation or inquiry. It matters not how damaging so groundless a charge is to the reputation or the interests of the union or the official concerned. If the union has the temerity in such a case to take action against the member, then any discipline is an unjustifiable infringement of the member's rights and leads to an award of compensation.
Secondly, the courts are to be given powers to order temporary injunctions against trade unions in
994
a whole range of cases brought by members, without any requirement that reasonable advance notice be given to the trade union before ex parte relief, without the union being represented, is granted, so that the union has a proper opportunity to defend itself. Thirdly, and most significantly, is the creation of a special commissioner or ombudsman to give assistance and to provide finance to members who want to bring a whole battery of legal proceedings against their trade union. The member even has a choice about the financial arrangement to be made in the provision of assistance.
So what we have is a Government who in our debates on the Legal Aid Bill refuse to extend legal aid for proceedings in industrial tribunals to allow employees to make good their statutory rights—for example, not to be unfairly dismissed—against their employers, yet a Government who are creating a special officer and giving finance out of the public purse to promote claims by dissident members against their own trade unions. That is yet another reason why I describe this Bill as disproportionate.
For all its pretensions, the note struck by the Bill is one of strident truimphalism. It exacts reparation but disproportionately to any wrongs that have conceivable been done to the body politic by the trade union movement. Although dressed up in terms of the rights of individuals, this Bill is no more and no less than an attempt to undermine the ability of trade unions to protect the interest of their members and to conduct their own affairs in accordance with the democratic wishes of the majority of their members. Instead they are to be subject to detailed regulation and interference and to constant harassment by any disaffected minority. This is not a Bill which looks for reconciliation, unity, the healing of wounds or the recreation of one nation. It is no more than old-style class war in the spurious guise of individual rights.
6.46 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, expressed surprise that we on these Benches, having supported many aspects of previous trade union legislation, were not wholeheartedly in support, to put it mildly, of the Bill that has come to your Lordships' House today. I do not know why he should be surprised. The Government talk about a step by step approach, but it is possible to go along step by step with the Government and then to decide that enough is enough. I shall come to the reasons why I believe that enough is enough in a few moments.
I want to agree with those who have been critical of Clause 3. For the reasons that have already been given, I shall not enlarge on that because it has been a major theme running through today's debate. I would merely pick up the point that was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, in the second speech this afternoon when she pointed out that it is perfectly possible, when the question of loyalty to the employer and breach of contract with the employer is raised, to have, as so many other countries have, a legal right to strike and along with that legal right to strike the temporary suspension of the contract of employment during the period of the strike. If the

995
Government are really concerned about that point of confusion of loyalties, that is a very easy way in which they could deal with it.
The noble Lord the Minister said that previous legislation has been so successful and that this is an argument for further development. I would ask him to think very carefully about his justification for the success of the previous legislation. Certain aspects of it have been successful. There was need for changes. But when the noble Lord points to the fall in the number of days lost through strikes as a result of the legislation—it may well be a non sequitur—if he looks back at the statistics he will find that at times of high unemployment the numbers of days lost in strikes have always fallen dramatically. We shall have to wait until the boasted return of, if not full employment, something like full employment before we know whether this legislation has been the cause of the reduction in strikes, or whether it has merely accompanied the reduction in strikes which may well have been primarily due to other causes.
That brings me to one of the reasons why I am very uneasy about the legislation. The Government continuously tell us that we are moving back into a state of economic recovery and a state in which unemployment is falling. We know that in certain parts of the country there are scarcities of labour in certain important categories. Are the Government so confident that they have created a climate of industrial relations in which, under conditions of full or near full employment, the good economic consequences which they seek will come? I am not going to say that the recent strikes and threats of strikes which we have had are anything remotely like a return to the winter of discontent. That would be a great exaggeration.
However, under good economic conditions, the absence of strikes and economic development depend on genuine good relations inside industry. That kind of legislation is not likely to develop those good relations, but to make it more difficult to get the kind of good relationships which we shall need increasingly when the threat of unemployment is removed and when we are back to the situation which we were in before. Then we needed to have no strikes; we needed to be able to guarantee that there would be no unreasonable, excessive wage claims.
These things depend on understanding and good relations. I doubt whether the legislation will move us in that direction. Indeed, one reason why we do not go any further in the steps of the Government in their reform of the trade unions is precisely because we believe that there should be a minimum of law in industrial relations. I believe that very strongly; it is the creed in which I was brought up in the field of industrial relations and I have never deviated from it. Good industrial relations depend upon good relationships within the place of work. The development of good relationships within the place of work can be hampered and not improved by too much law. I want to keep the sticky fingers of the lawyers out of industrial relations; in my view they have been coming in far too much over recent years. I want to see that cut back, not increased. I am not making any friends with the lawyers; but that never worried me very much.
996
I personally want to spend more time this evening on Part II of the Bill. Nearly everybody in today's debate has concentrated on Part I, which is of course important. Industrial relations are important in their own right and for the development of companies and therefore of the economy. But I believe that good industrial relations only create the environment in which that success can come about, and that good training is really in the long run more important even than good industrial relations. So I am deeply interested in Part II, which deals with training.
I do not understand what the Conservative Government are doing with the Manpower Services Commission. It was after all the Conservative Government which brought it into force. They removed the employment services from the Department of Employment and put them into the Manpower Services Commission. They did that and—let us not be mealy-mouthed about this—the employment services under the Department of Employment have been an outstanding failure. The labour exchanges of the old department were a bad joke, and anybody who was in industry at the time will tell you that that was so.
I do not understand why, having put the employment services into the Manpower Services Commission, the Government are now taking them out again. Of course, the Government are doing it because they see a very close link between benefit and employment. But one of the reasons for removing the employment services from the Department of Employment was that they should not be linked with benefit and unemployment, but should be a constructive service, furthering employment. People should not feel that the service was linked to benefit. It was the Conservative Government which took it out. Why on earth should a Conservative Government go into reverse?
The link between employment and training is far more organic and important in my view than the link between benefit and employment, particularly if we are moving to a position to which we ought to be moving, where a great deal of work goes on at local level. There is far more freedom to manoeuvre than there has been at local level up till now, so that it is possible to match training programmes to local employment needs. That has been one of the greatest weaknesses up until now.
We have national figures about unemployment and employment, and we have national schemes for training. What is really needed, because the great mass of people get jobs or do not get jobs in the area in which they live, is that there should be the closest possible working relations between the employment service and the training service. This is what the Government are deliberately undermining.
However, worse than that, as I mentioned last week when the question of the Government's proposal to set up agencies was raised, the Government are now saying that one of these agencies is to be the employment services. Will the Minister please explain what the Government are up to? Only last October they said that they would take the employment services out of the Manpower Services Commission and put them back into the

997
Department of Employment. They are now going to take them out of the Department of Employment and put them into an agency.
All those changes are disruptive to the staff and disruptive to the good work which the employment services are doing. If the Government really mean to make an agency of them, can they not leave them in the Manpower Services Commission until they have set up the agencies and then do something about it? It seems that the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing inside the Government. There are two plans which simply do not move in harness at all. I should very much like an answer to that.
Then the Government are determined to increase the proportion of employers, both on the Manpower Services Commission (the Training Commission as it will be) and on the local training boards. I am chairman of one of the manpower boards and I hope to be chairman of one of the training boards. The Manpower Services Commission did not want the increase in the employers. I can tell you that as a chairman of a local board that I do not want the increase in employers. It is essential in these schemes to carry the trade unions with us. There have been many moments when the support for schemes—good schemes in my view—from the trade unions has been very difficult to obtain. But if the Government insist both at national and at local level on outvoting the trade unions by putting up such a high proportion of employers, then of course the trade union confidence in the commission and in the local boards will be undermined. It will be extremely difficult to carry through what I hope will be revolutionary changes in training, although they will not be revolutionary unless the Government are prepared to put even more money into them. But that is another matter. It will be difficult to do that if the trade union suspicion of those organisations is of such a kind that their collaboration is either non-existent or extremely hesitant.
Then there is the question of the reduction or the removal of benefit for youngsters in connection with the YTS. Again, the Manpower Services Commission was quite clear that these schemes should be voluntary. In my view it is most regrettable that the Government have gone back on this, against the advice of the MSC. If for all 16- to 18-year-olds we had a period which was regarded as education or training, and there were appropriate grants for people from 16 to 18 as being either students or trainees, that would be another matter. But that is not what we have. We are saying that youngsters must go into a YTS programme or they will lose benefit. What is the point of forcing someone into a training programme when they do not wish to go into it?
I should hate to have to train someone who did not wish to be there. Youngsters are extremely good— and not only youngsters, but people generally—at finding ways of making life very difficult indeed for people who are trying to work with them if they do not wish to be engaged in that work. Their ingenuity in doing this will be unbounded. If I were an employer involved in the day-to-day work of carrying out the training programmes, the last thing I should want would be conscripts to the schemes.
998
There is a further point which we must admit. The YTS commitment to provide training is a bold scheme. With all its defects, I have always supported it because we have such a woefully untrained labour force in this country. There are very big improvements going on. The second year of YTS, with its approved training organisation recognition and its achievement of the standards that are required, has meant that it is doing what has always been needed. It is giving us a much better expectation that the training really will be good.
But we know that a lot of the training is not good enough yet. We know from the Government's own publications that employers in this country are way behind employers elsewhere in the calibre of training that they are providing. Of course there are some places which offer absolutely first-class training but there are a great many which pay only lip service to it. It is monstrous to say that we have to force youngsters to go into training not only when they do not want to but when we know that the quality of that training is not good enough. I beg the Government to think again on these matters.
7 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, we have had an interesting if not a balanced debate. I make it seven speakers for the Government and 12 speakers against the Government. That assumes that the noble Earl. Lord Dundee, will support the Government. If it has not been a balanced debate it has also not been a very novel debate. Indeed some of the arguments that have been used on both sides of the House have been a bit old hat. That is not really our fault. Every other year this Government introduce an anti-trade union Bill. I disagree with my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton only in the fact that there was one other Bill which he did not mention and that was the Wages Act 1986. Therefore there is the Employment Act 1980, the Employment Act 1982, the Trade Union Act 1984, the Wages Act 1986 and now we shall have the Employment Act 1988. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, when he said that there will be more. After all we have it on the highest conceivable authority.
The Prime Minister told Brian Connell in a well known interview in the Director in September 1983:
"We may need to continue every other year until we get it right".
So of course there may be more and more Bills and we apologise in advance if the argument gets a little repetitive.
I have been round this course at least five times. I have seen off the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, the noble Lords, Lord Cockfield and Lord Young of Graffham, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, all of whom have moved to higher things. However, we have back the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and I hope that he moves to higher things as well.
As a result of all this the noble Lord summarised for us what he thought the Bill would achieve and where he thought we were. We do not recognise the picture that he painted, however. What we see are trade unions in this country as a result of the legislation with fewer rights and more liabilities than in any other country in Western Europe.

999
We see British workers, especially those who are most likely to be dismissed unfairly—that is workers who work for small firms and workers who have less than two years service—with no unfair dismissal rights at all. We see the United Kingdom trade union movement more regulated than in any country in the West which is a signatory to the ILO Convention on the Freedom to Organise. We believe that this country is in fact in fundamental breach of the ILO Convention.
Now we have another Bill. I have tried to analyse as best I can the arguments that have come from the various supporters of the Bill to see whether I can draw them together and find some simple answers. I think that there have been four general arguments. First, we have been told that we must pass this Bill because of the beneficial effects of previous Bills; all previous steps that have been taken have been good steps so we must have some more steps. That has been the argument of the noble Lords, Lord Trefgarne, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Mottistone.
Secondly, there have been those who have talked about the alleged abuses; although a great number of abuses have been removed by this legislation unfortunately some remain. That was the argument of the noble Lords, Lord Trefgarne, Lord Wyatt of Weeford and Lord Renton.
Thirdly, quite apart from the alleged abuses and the beneficial previous steps, it has been argued that the public wants this Bill. The public has said through public opinion polls and other measures that it wants more of these provisions. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said that. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, asked one of our speakers about this and the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, made much of public demand. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, said something which is not quite the same thing. He said that it does not really matter what the public says through public opinion polls. This measure was included in the manifesto, it was included in the Green Paper so the Government can do it anyway.
I wish to go very quickly through these four arguments and see how they stand up. First, there have certainly been some effects from past Bills. There is no doubt about that. Unlike the Industrial Relations Act 1971, previous Acts have been used. There have been 40 court cases on the part of employers to enforce Part II of the 1984 Act. There have been 60 other cases, we are told, 40 of which involved secondary boycotts.
The TUC says that 12 trade unionists have actually brought actions for unreasonable exclusion against their trade union, although in the great majority of cases the trade unions sustained their case. ACAS says that it knows of 80 or so strike ballots and a similar number of closed shop ballots and that the trade unions on the whole won about 70 to 75 per cent. in each case. So this legislation has been used. It has not been used by the overwhelming majority of employers of course but it has not exclusively been used by the cowboys. Some quite reputable employers have used this Act.
Because of that the Government say, and I believe that the Minister today actually repeated the words
1000
used in the brief of the Secretary of State in another place, that as a result of the legislation we have:
"avoided much unnecessary and damaging industrial action".
He went on to quote the very words used by the Secretary of State about that industrial action. He mentioned the fact that we had had fewer strikes in 1985 and 1986 than at any time since the war and that the Secretary of State was speaking in another place at col. 816 of the Official Report of 3rd November, against a background of:
"the lowest monthly total since the war of days lost".
Let us look at those figures, although to some extent previous speakers, including the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, have already exploded the argument based upon them. The number of strikes has been declining in this country since 1970, the last year of the Heath Government, when it reached the all time figure of around 4,000 strikes a year. Since that time the number of strikes has been declining. By 1984 it was about 50 per cent. of the 1970 figure and it has been falling at roughly about that rate ever since.
I know why the Minister uses the figures as he does. It is because in 1986 the number of strikes actually rose again. In 1986 there were 23 per cent. more strikes than in the previous year. I calculate that 1987 will at least be up to that figure when we get the full figures.
Similarly we are told that we have the lowest number of working days lost in any month since the war. That figure referred to the month of August which is a rather far away background. In September the number of strikes rose by 27 per cent; in October by 31 per cent. and they have been rising since. As several speakers have said on this side of the House, the signs are that 1987 will be a record year for working days lost in terms of the last few years.
Of course I doubt very much whether we shall get back to the notorious figure of 1984 when there were 27·1 million working days lost mostly in the mining industry. Nevertheless I calculate that so far in 1987, 3·4 million working days have been lost, and that is an annual rate of 4 million working days lost for the year as a whole.
If 1988 so far is any guide it could be above that next year. But as speakers on this side of the House have said we know that whether the number of working days lost goes up or down does not depend upon the law. I do not believe that it depends in fact upon a general economic recovery. Whether or not the number of working days lost goes up or down in any year since the early 1970s depends on what the Government's attitude is to pay in the public sector. If they get involved in a major dispute with workers in the public sector, we shall go back to a figure of working days lost of 6, 9 and 10 million or so. That has nothing whatever to do with legislation.
Turning to the allegation that abuses are still rampant, I was pleased to see that the Minister did not go back to the ETU. The ETU has been an old friend in previous debates. We have known it was going to appear whenever people talked about abuses in the trade union movement. But the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, did not disappoint us. However, we did not hear about the ETU from the

1001
Government. We got more recent issues. In the Green Paper we have one or two rather more recent examples. However, they were very vague.
For the most part, the electoral abuses are allegations. They are not proven, as was the case with the old ETU. As regards the actions against individuals, some of which are contained in the Green Paper—the case of the T&G, the members of the NUR, ASLEF, and so on—we say two things. It has already been said by speakers on this side of the House but I must repeat our view that those cases are atypical. We do not say that they do not exist, or that no trade union election is ever irregular. We do not say that discipline is never taken against individual workers in trade unions in ways which are unjustified. But we say that those cases are atypical. For example, in most cases which I know about affecting discipline the unions never carry their sanctions out, or actually collect the money. They go through the motions.
Secondly, we say that there are powers to deal with these matters. Powers have been put in place by previous employment Acts. We say that this Bill makes any kind of action to enforce a closed shop quite unlawful, which was the basis of any unfairness and damage which arose out of unreasonable expulsion. We say that as a result of the 1980 legislation there is now on the statute book a provision for compensation in cases of unreasonable expulsion.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, gave an example concerning the NUJ and the £1,000 fine which the NUJ "unofficial group"—I believe that those were his words; I wrote them down—sought to take from the NUJ members. I can only say that even before any of the present Government's legislation came into force, the good old common law provided that if an unofficial group, unjustified by the rule hook of the NUJ, sought to use power in that way, that was actionable and the victims could go to the High Court and get legal aid. Therefore, we say that there are safeguards which would exist without the Bill. They do not justify the Bill.
The third argument is that the public want more controls, as envisaged by the opinion polls. I suggest to the Government with all seriousness that it is dangerous for them, in their position, to be keen on opinion polls. Most of the time, since we joined the Common Market, public opinion polls have wanted us to get out. For several years now there have been opinion polls demanding the withdrawal of British troops from Northern Ireland. In Dublin, there are even larger majorities in favour of ending the Anglo-Irish Treaty. Especially at this time it is bad for Conservatives to talk about public opinion polls because they know and we know that all the polls suggest that the Chancellor should give his money to the NHS rather than giving it away in tax cuts. We also know that the Government will not take any notice of those polls.
Therefore, it is silly for the Government to bring opinion polls forward as a justification. In any case, those polls contradict one another. It has been said in the debate from the other side of the House and by the Secretary of State in another place that the MORI poll supported what we on this side of the House call the scab's charter, which is Clause 3. However, the TUC says that the poll was unfair because the
1002
question asked did not make it clear that the discipline which was being ruled out was taking place after a legal ballot. Nevertheless, a subsequent Gallup poll supported the position of the Trade Union Congress. Of those interviewed, 25 per cent. said that in their opinion the Government's antiunion legislation had gone too far already.
Only one in five of the public thought that we needed the Bill. So opinion polls say different things, and as the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has said, if you are to justify legislation of this importance you must justify it by reference to its merits. You cannot quote public opinion polls, say you put it in your manifesto, make vague statements about alleged abuses and talk about the fine things you have done in the past. You have to defend it clause by clause and section by section on the Floor of the House.
I do not have the time nor do I wish to go through the various clauses in the Bill which we shall discuss in considerable detail at Committee stage and which I think my noble friends on this side of the House have broadly dealt with. However, I wish to say a few words about two of the clauses. The first is the scab's charter. I want to answer one argument of which the Secretary of State is very fond and which has been used by noble Lords on the other side of the House. We shall probably hear it at the Committee stage. I call it the plurality of obligations argument.
The argument is that we must get the striker to think of his employer, of the state, of the public, of his wife, of his children and of his dear old mum. The Government are truly concerned, they tell us, to protect the right of strikers to decide, subject to no coercion. Yet they are the people who have taken away the right against unfair dismissal for all workers employed under two years. They are the people who have refused to legislate to give workers a right to strike. Workers have no right to strike in this country and all strikes involve a breach of contract. They say: "We intervene to protect you from trade union pressure; but if it is employer pressure which threatens you with the sack, I am afraid you are on your own". So much for the plurality of obligations.
If the Government were truly concerned about fathers, mothers or wives, would they not provide a decent level of supplementary benefit during a strike? Would they not do something about the disregard? No, because of their hypocrisy, as my noble friend has said. The plurality of obligations argument is just another way of undermining trade union solidarity.
I turn to Part II. I should like to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who has said that she does not know what the Government are doing to the MSC, that I do not think that she can possibly mean that. They are taking it out and shooting it. They are neutering it. Why? Because they cannot shut it up. They have taken Brian Nicholson round and round the garden and he still says that they are ruining his training programme by making it compulsory. So they have had to get rid of him. Everybody tells them—the CBI, the Youth Training Council, which is their own consultative body—that if they set up a compulsory system without any more money they are gong to ruin the scheme. The answer is that they do not mind. That is why they are doing what they are doing to the MSC.

1003
We therefore ask the House to support us in subsequent debates at the Committee stage when we seek to modify this Bill. We believe that the trade union movement is not alone any more. As Members on my side of the House have admitted, there was a time, in the early 1980s, when support for the trade union movement, after the winter of discontent, was extremely low. But since that time more and more people have come to see that the present position of the movement is in some way like the BBC, local government, the Bench of Bishops, the MSC and all those other people in the country who will not quite do what they are told by the Government. That is why we oppose the Bill.
7.20 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking all of your Lordships who have spoken on this subject. The attention that has been given on all sides of the House to the detail of the Bill has been reflected in the quality of the debate, and I look forward to the further discussion when we come to the Committee stage.
There has also been a consistent theme in our approach to such legislation. First of all, legislation has been designed to tackle issues of evident public concern. That was perhaps self-evident in the case of the 1980 Employment Act where the public had clearly repudiated the system of law in force in the late 1970s, to which some of your Lordships have already referred. Among other things, the 1982 Employment Act tackled one of the roots of public concern—the legislation which had put trade unions in a unique position as regards their immunity from legal proceedings. Similarly, the relevance of the Trade Union Act 1984 was vividly illustrated by the problems about ballots before strikes which were apparent during the miners' strike which started before the Bill was introduced. The present Bill responds to the perception that union members are relatively defenceless when pitted against the might of their union.
The second theme underlying the Government's approach has been that changes have been made within the existing framework of the law and common law principles. Although in 1981 the Green Paper Trade Union Immunities put forward for discussion radical ideas such as "positive rights", there was no real enthusiasm for such a degree of change from those in industry who deal with industrial relations matters on a day-to-day basis. The existing legal framework therefore has continued to be used. Moreover, a crucial principle in all that has been done since 1979 is that the initiation of legal action under the law is left to affected parties. That has enabled the Government to reform the law by redefining the boundaries for legal immunity which society is prepared to accept and it has preserved the fundamental principle that at the heart of the employment relationship lies an explicit or implicit contract.
The final major theme is a recognition of the fact that industrial relations law must respond to changes in the economy and society. The proposals in the Green Paper Trade Unions and Their Members took full account of this principle and quoted examples of
1004
actions taken by unions in recent years which justified legislation to prevent their re-occurrence. It also recognised that many of its proposals reflected experience showing that union members were willing to use the safeguards and remedies which the law could provide and were less willing than in the past to tolerate treatment from unions which they considered unjust or to amount to intimidation.
A number of your Lordships have put their case against the Bill with vigour. I should say, however, that some of the arguments put forward appear to have overlooked various key features of the Bill which were mentioned by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne in his opening speech. I should therefore like to touch upon one or two of those features.
The Bill does not deal with the rights of members of social clubs, sports clubs, political parties or of a national community. It deals with trade unions and acknowledges that they are in many ways quite special institutions. Governments of various parties have accepted that unions need a special framework of law which recognises the way in which they can affect members' working lives.
Unions and companies are quite different. Therefore analogies with the law regulating companies' relationship with shareholders or employees are not a great deal of use as a guide to the way in which the law should regulate the relationship between unions and their members. The Bill is entirely in the tradition of industrial relations legislation since 1979. It responds to changes in our economy and society and within trade unions themselves. Its provisions look to our present and future needs and not back to the past. Nothing in the Bill results from an ideologically-based attack on trade unions or trade unionists. I believe that unions—responsible and responsive trade unions—will benefit from the Bill, as will all trade union members.
The overall objective of Part II of the Bill is to bring up to date our employment and training services so that we are better able to respond to the demands of the 1990s and beyond.
As I have said, the Bill is in the tradition of industrial relations law since 1979. I do not feel that we have to defend to any great extent the charge of inconsistency in what is proposed. I should say to the noble Lords, Lord Blease and Lord Mason, who suggested that the Bill is an attack on trade unionism, that the main industrial relations and trade union proposals in the Bill were set out in the Green Paper published last February and debated in this House last April as your Lordships well know. As my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham said then, the purpose of these changes in the law is,
"to strengthen the rights of members of a trade union and not to whittle them away".—[Official Report, 29/4/87; col. 1553.]
Some of your Lordships point to the practices of certain trade unions as models of democracy and imply that there is no need for change. However, I do not feel that that view would be shared by the many thousands of union members who have been disciplined by their unions simply for choosing to go to work. Nor would it be readily concurred with by those members who had to complain to the certification officer about failure of their unions to fulfil the statutory duties applying to election of

1005
members of their executives. Then, of course, there are job seekers and employees who find themselves refused work, or dismissed, because an employer risks industrial action being organised against him if he takes them on or keeps them on. Clearly, that category also would not endorse the criticism.
The noble Lords, Lord Rochester and Lord Mason, were concerned that the provisions will damage good industrial relations. I can fully appreciate the apparency of that charge if nothing else, but this country has much to be proud of in the improvement of its reputation both at home and abroad over recent years. Trade unionists and employees have made a critical contribution to that improvement. I can assure your Lordships that the Government will do nothing that would put that achievement at risk and are not doing so with this Bill.
The cry that "good industrial relations will be damaged" has been heard every time the Government have acted to reform industrial relations and trade union law. A variant on the theme, associated with every Bill since the Employment Act of 1980, is that the latest legislation "goes a step too far". But what substance have those criticisms had in practice? Is it seriously suggested that this country would have had better industrial relations had the Government left untouched the legislation they inherited in 1979?
In fairness to the noble Lord, Lord Mason, I recognise that the thrust of his argument was to give us credit for what we have done since 1979, and to single out this particular Bill with which he is not too enamoured. I do not claim that the changes in the law have alone brought about every improvement, but I have yet to see any real evidence that they have on balance harmed our country's economic performance and prosperity.
A major reason for the success of the Government's legislation since 1979 is that it has left enforcement of the law to parties directly affected by unlawful action. The provisions of this Bill are entirely consistent with that principle. It is illustrated, for example, in the approach taken to the commissioner for the rights of trade union members. The commissioner will not (despite the descripton of the provisions of the Bill which is sometimes heard and has been given indirectly tonight) be a "trade union harassment officer". He (or she) will not have any roving brief to challenge a union's conduct by acting on his own initiative or at his own volition. A union member may face an immense disadvantage in taking certain legal actions against his union because the union has far greater resources. The commissioner's assistance will merely redress that disadvantage.
The Government would in fact be quite content if the commissioner's assistance was seldom sought, and therefore seldom used, provided that this was because unions were observing the relevant duties owed to their members, and those members consequently had no cause for complaint that their rights were being denied. The availability of the commissioner's assistance could be an effective and worthwile deterrent in itself.
Similarly, the Government have no desire to see a substantial number of legal actions taken against
1006
unions under any of the provisions of the Bill. Much the best result would be an absence of litigation because unions were not committing the abuses that litigation might be needed to remedy.
Turning to Clause 3, which concerns protection against union discipline, noble Lords have argued against this proposal with great sincerity and conviction, but the clause is not about union-bashing or preventing people from taking industrial action, as perhaps we are led to believe. Nor will it prevent a union from ever disciplining members who break its rules. The protection is targeted quite specifically on discipline for certain conduct only; it is based on the principle that it is wrong that a union should be able to coerce an individual into acting against his convictions or punish him for bringing to light misconduct by his union.
There are a number of points which must be made when considering the need for statutory protection against union discipline for refusing to join a strike or other industrial action. First, although unions may be protected against the legal consequences of inducing employees to break their contract of employment, the individual trade union member himself has no such protection.
The union member has a number of obligations, however. He has an obligation to his trade union, as noble Lords have already said, but he also just as certainly has an obligation to his employer under his contract of employment. And of course he also has an obligation to his own family, to the firm's customers and suppliers and not least to the wider community. Those separate duties and obligations can pull an individual in different directions. The Government's view is that he should not be influenced in coming to a decision about what to do by the fear of disciplinary action taken against him by his own trade union.
Regrettably, there have been instances of just this kind of thing where unions have disciplined members for not striking. The Green Paper mentioned, for example, the National Union of Railwaymen, ASLEF and the National Union of Mineworkers. More recently, the National Communications Union and the National Association of Schoolmasters and the Union of Women Teachers have both been reported as expelling many hundreds of their members simply for going to work. There have also been other cases of individuals being disciplined for going to work. Those are not the only examples.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and my noble friend Lord Mottistone, in reference to Clause 3, were concerned about the position of employers and wondered whether the statutory right in this Bill would override the contract. I can tell them that the clause does not alter the relationship between an employer and employees who wish to work but rather protects those employees in their relationship with their unions. Employers are not normally obliged to provide work by keeping workplaces open during a strike so long as they pay the agreed wages. The clause does not alter that in any way and should not therefore present employers with any new difficulties. The question of whether or not an employer is entitled to put an employee on short time or temporary lay-off or is obliged to make him an offer of alternative work is determined by individual contracts of employment.

1007
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, questioned whether dissidents should be allowed to remain in unions when union membership is now entirely voluntary. Although the Bill removes all remaining statutory support for the closed shop by removing a union's ability to enforce it and by making dismissal for non-membership unfair, that is a far cry from making the closed shop unlawful. For example, it does not stop an employer who wishes to do so requiring job applicants to be union members. Employers are in the best position to judge whom to recruit and should be left as free as possible to do so.
It would be wrong therefore to conclude that Clause 3 is unnecessary because individuals who lose or give up their union membership will have nothing to fear. Lack of a union card can make all the difference when it comes to finding work in the printing industry, for example. But the principal argument for the protection given in Clause 3 is not the closed shop; it is the point of principle that individuals should not be coerced by fear of union discipline into breaking their contract of employment.
The noble Lord, Lord Basnett, asked how a union could discipline unofficial strikers or those who refused to return to work if it were prevented from disciplining non-strikers. The Bill does not prevent the union from disciplining those who do not return to work after a vote has been taken to end the strike, although the noble Lord gave the impression that he thought that that was the unions' current practice. For example, at Wapping the only discipline exercised was against those who chose to work rather than for the purpose of restraining violence, despite suggestions by the courts that disciplinary action might be appropriate in the latter case.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason, asked whether we felt that Clause 3 would undermine the provisions on pre-strike ballots. However, the new right will not alter in any way the fundamental importance to the union of a pre-strike ballot. It will remain of paramount importance to the union to hold a ballot because without one it will lose its immunity from legal proceedings for any inducement to its members to break their contract of employment. That will ensure that unions continue to hold ballots.
However, even without that incentive for the union to hold a ballot, I believe that far from undermining the balloting provisions, unions deprived of the power to discipline non-striking members will actually be more anxious now to obtain the views of their members before calling for industrial action. I believe that unions will come to see the wisdom of convincing members that such action is justified and will hesitate before taking industrial action when they know that a substantial minority of their members is opposed to it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, suggested that union discipline would draw the sting of strikers' ill-feeling against free riders. I understand the point that the noble Baroness seeks to make but must question whether that view justifies the disciplining of so many thousands of individuals.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, took the view that it was a logical error to provide for members to flout
1008
a majority decision if the rule is that decisions are taken by the majority. I must tell the noble Lord that logic cannot determine this issue. It depends on the decision. The union may choose to decide that it will require members to strike. It could equally decide, as unions do in other countries, to invite its members to strike. That can be presented as an issue of logic only within the extraordinary narrow assumptions of the British trade union movement.
I should add in this context that, as perhaps we all know, a MORI opinion poll in June 1987 showed that 70 per cent. of voters, and no less than 60 per cent. of Labour voters, wanted legal protection for union members who refused to join a strike even if the majority votes for one. In a MORI poll of trade unionists taken in August, more supported than opposed that view. More recent polls have confirmed the general dislike of unions imposing their views.
I now turn briefly to Clause 12, which concerns the extension of the statutory election requirement. The Government have made no secret of their belief that union leaders should be representative of the membership. That was spelt out in our manifesto at the general election and in the Green Paper. Additionally, a MORI opinion poll in June 1987 showed that 88 per cent. of union members, including 82 per cent. of Labour voters, supported the election of union governing bodies by secret ballot once every five years.
Clause 12 of the Bill gives effect to that by extending the 1984 Trade Union Act's election requirements to all those who are members of the executive, general secretaries and presidents and those who act as though they are members. The clause closes a loophole in the 1984 Act by means of which certain union leaders have been able to give up their vote on the principal executive committee and so evade the election requirement. The Government consider it important to avoid providing any new loopholes, and the clause is therefore drafted quite rightly to reduce to a minimum any opportunity for evasion.
The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, argued that some unions should be allowed to continue to appoint their general secretaries rather than have them elected. As we know, general secretaries are often the individuals of whom people think first when they hear a union's name. They can of course wield a great deal of influence, and much more influence than a non-elected post might suggest. Such an amendment to the Bill would permit leaders such as Clive Jenkins (formerly of ASTMS), Ken Gill (formerly of TASS), Fred Jarvis of the NUT, and so on, who are all appointed officials, to be exempted from the election requirement. I do not think that there is much justification for that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, asked me why we should reduce the retirement exemption from five years to two years. This is a misunderstanding. The noble Baroness is referring to the exemption in Clause 12(4), which is a wholly new provision confined to the specific position of appointed officials. The five-year exemption provided by the 1984 Act will remain suitably amended. I refer the noble Baroness to Schedule 3, paragraph 5(5).
The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, asked why election addresses should not be sent out with voting papers.

1009
He asked me to confirm that the Government would agree to that suggestion. I can confirm that the Government are considering this issue, and, as was said by my right honourable friend the Minister of State in another place, we hope to table a suitable amendment at the Committee stage.
In reference to Clause 12, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said that general secretaries would have to stop being employees of the union. This is not the case. The Bill contains nothing which prevents an elected general secretary from being employed. It may be necessary for the union to ensure that the contract of employment of a general secretary expires when his post falls due for election; but there is no real difficulty in doing that.
My noble friend Lord Renton asked me what progress has been made in compiling trade union registers of members. Unions have had a duty since 1985 to compile and maintain an up-to-date register. This is a matter for the unions and their members, but the certification officer has received one complaint on which he ruled that the union was meeting the statutory requirements. The Bill will contribute to the maintenance of accurate registers by allowing each member to inspect his entry.
Turning to Clause 16 and the prevention of manipulation of pre-strike ballots, some of your Lordships have raised various matters in this connection. I am sure that we shall have the opportunity in Committee to go over these matters in much more detail. I therefore do not wish to dwell in particular on them now. However, for the moment I simply remind noble Lords what this clause is about and what it achieves.
As the law stands, a union wishing to organise selective action might combine the votes of members working in different workplaces solely on the basis that this was likely to produce an overall majority in favour of action. This problem with the present law has been identified by both the Institute for Personnel Management and the Industrial Society.
In future the union will have to conduct a separate ballot for each of these workplaces, and will have immunity only for organising action at a workplace where the majority votes in favour.
This clause is really as simple as that. It does not prevent unions from organising selective industrial action. It does not require unions to hold separate workplace ballots in all circumstances. It will not disrupt established bargaining arrangements. What it will do, I accept, is to require unions, in particular circumstances only, to review the balloting constituency whose votes must be obtained to see whether, and to what extent, the balloting must be organised in a certain way. If any of your Lordships are in doubt about this, I am sure that we can return to these matters in Committee.
We have heard that the Institute of Personnel Management has published comments stating that in its view Clause 16 should be dropped from the Bill. I suggest that its comments do not necessarily advocate what solution should be adopted as a preferred one and may actually be based on a misunderstanding about the effects of the clause. Again, we can come back to this at a later stage.
1010
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine, is not correct when he says that Clause 16 requires a majority to be obtained at the workplace, when there are separate ballots. The union will keep its immunity from action in tort, in respect of industrial action taken at each workplace where there has been a "yes" vote. The noble Lord is not correct that Clause 3 always protects a member who makes an unfounded statement. He is not protected if the statement is untrue and he knew it to be untrue. I feel that this is unambiguous from Clause 3(4).
Turning to the clause concerning the commissioner, the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, asked why we should not protect the anonymity of complaints to the commissioner. The noble Lord suggested that it would be better if the commissioner were able to act on his own volition in his own name. I understand the concerns that give rise to these suggestions, but there are compelling arguments against such an arrangement. It has been a key principle of the Government's legislation since 1979 that action to enforce the law against trade unionists is left to those who are affected by unlawful action. A self-starting commissioner could be seen as an agent interfering in the trade union's affairs with no proper basis for so doing. That criticism cannot legitimately he levelled at the commissioner as put forward in the Bill. Union members have shown a willingness in recent years to complain in public about their union's failure to accord them the rights and duties that they are owed. In addition, Clause 3 of the Bill will provide specific protection against union discipline for any member who seeks or obtains the commission's assistance.
Moving on to Part II of the Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, expressed concern that the provisions will undermine the valuable work of the Manpower Services Commission in the field of employment and training. This is a serious accusation which is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the aim and nature of these provisions.
As my noble friend Lord Trefgarne has made clear, we have reached a significant turning point in the labour market. Over the past two years there has been an extraordinary and rapid reversal in unemployment; and unemployment is falling at record levels. Since 1983, over l½ million additional jobs have been created. Paradoxically, our very success in turning the labour market around throws up new problems. We must ensure that unemployed people can take full advantage of the new jobs. As skill shortages grow, we must make sure that training is given priority both for those in employment and for the unemployed so that they can gain the skills they need to fill the growing number of vacancies. The aim of Part II is to set a framework in which we can face these problems head-on in the years to come.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said that the provisions of Clause 24—which adjust the powers of the Employment and Training Act 1973—show excessive centralisation and a distaste for consensus. Our manifesto clearly outlined plans to consult on a major restructuring of our employment and training services. We have now established an integrated employment service after consultation with the

1011
Manpower Services Commission, which, as my noble friend Lord Trefgarne explained, is designed to help the unemployed to get their fair share of the new jobs the economy is generating. The adjustments made by Clause 24 follow from our desire to give the Secretary of State his own power to run the new employment service within the Department of Employment through the modest adjustments to the 1973 Act made by Clause 24.
There is no reason why this change should affect in practice the relationship between the Secretary of State and the commission, or the commission's ability to carry out the same functions as it does at present. Indeed, Schedule 2, paragraph 4, specifically provides that it should.
Training has a crucial role to play as our economy picks up, both in helping the unemployed to take advantage of the new opportunities and in ensuring that employers have the trained workforce they need to compete successfully and grow. As foreshadowed in our manifesto, Clause 23 marks an important change in the role of the Manpower Services Commission to enable it to focus on training and retraining. In that regard I am very grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Vinson for this new focus. I note his comments about part-time work and the long-term unemployed.
Clause 23 has given the commission an appropriate name—the Training Commission. It has given it the right kind of structure by providing scope for greater involvement of employers. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said that the Trades Union Congress considers this change as an attempt to marginalise its role. We recognise the commitment of the TUC to training, and we see a continuing role for all those currently involved in the commission; but employers are the main providers of training. They are also the main customers for it. This change will allow us to appoint employers from across the spectrum of industry including the newer sectors where employment growth is fastest. Far from undermining the commission, these provisions are designed to ensure that the commission can as effectively meet the challenges of the next 15 years as it did those of the past 15.
We must also ensure that we invest fully in the skills of our young people. In future, for the first time every young person will be able to stay in full-time education or training until the age of 18 and every young person will have the opportunity to enter the world of work with a recognised qualification. That is the way, in conjunction with the Social Security Bill, that we are able to provide new arrangements for our young people so that none of them need ever again go straight from school to the dole. That is why we have taken the power in Clause 24 to provide a bridging allowance to enable young people—after they have exhausted entitlement to child benefit—to make the transition from one job or YTS to another.
On the powers in Clause 24 to include duty to make special provision for the disabled—to which reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, and my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter—all our major programmes make special provision for the disabled, including YTS. Moreover, the powers
1012
contained in Clause 24 impose a duty to make arrangements for the purpose of assisting persons to select, train for, obtain and retain employment suitable for their ages, and in particular their capacities.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, asked why the level of the bridging allowance will not be approved by Parliament. No payments made under the powers of the Employment and Training Act 1973, which Clause 24 amends, are subject to such scrutiny, including the YTS allowance. However, the bridging allowance will be paid by the Department of Employment. It is not a form of income support, as the noble Lord perhaps suggests; but it is a short-term payment intended as a bridging allowance for young people waiting for a new YTS place after leaving YTS or waiting for a job.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked about the position of young people studying under the so-called 21-hour rule. Young people studying part-time, while also drawing benefit, must be unemployed and seeking work, even though they are filling some of their time with part-time study. It is surely fair that they should be treated in the same way as other unemployed 16 and 17 year-olds. Young people under 19, staying on in full-time education, have traditionally been considered by both this and previous governments to be primarily dependent on their parents for financial support. In such circumstances, child benefit is available to the parents until the young person's 19th birthday. There are ample opportunities for those reaching minimum school-leaving age to further their education and training. For example, those seeking to improve their qualifications will have the option of staying on at school or going to a college of further education on a full-time basis. Alternatively, part-time study may be undertaken at night school while in employment or on YTS. Those aged 18 and over, studying part time while in receipt of benefit under the DHSS 21-hour rule, will continue to receive benefit as long as they satisfy the normal conditions of eligibility set by the DHSS.
The Government make no claim that the Bill will put the world to rights—even the industrial relations or trade union world—or that it will be the last measure of its type which will ever be needed. Nor do I claim that Part II of the Bill will solve the unemployment and training problems which we shall face in the late 1980s and over the next 10 to 15 years. Your Lordships will have the opportunity to consider the detail of the Bill in Committee. I am confident that the general principles of the legislation will meet with your Lordships' approval though, as with previous similar measures put before the House, your Lordships may well be able to make significant improvements to the detail. However, the need for the Bill, and for the protections that it will provide for ordinary trade unionists, are surely quite apparent. It can provide the means to prevent particular abuses of trade union power. It also sets the right foundations for tackling the key issues for training and employment in years to come. Taken together, both parts of the Bill will thereby help to lay the framework for our future prosperity. In that spirit I ask the House to give the Bill a second reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill
7.53 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Twelve years ago your Lordships were instrumental in the tranformation of the Stour and Orwell basin from being the home of historic, important but essentially regional ports into the centre of maritime trade in this country. In those days Felixstowe was not a name with which to conjure alongside London, Liverpool, Bristol or Southampton. However, today it is the United Kingdom's largest container port. In the past two years alone container traffic has increased by almost 50 per cent.
In 1976, at Third Reading, the House overturned an attempt to have the privately-owned Felixstowe dock passed into the ownership of a then nationalised body, the British Transport Docks Board. A number of your Lordships described such a move as nationalisation by the back-door; that is to say, nationalisation by means of private legislation. So it was, and look at the results of your Lordships' wisdom in overturning that attempt! Even before the Labour Government of the day fell in 1979, Felixtowe was already contributing to that improvement in our economy which has accelerated so greatly under the present Administration—thanks to your Lordships, so to say.
As Opposition economic spokesman at the time, I played a small part in helping to defeat that back-door nationalisation. Sonic of your Lordships may remember that those were the heady days in which noble Lords were heavily lobbied by Felixstowe dock workers, who were members of the TGWU but were lobbying in favour of the position taken by ourselves in Opposition against the wishes of their national leadership. In that respect matters have not altogether changed, as I shall indicate in a moment. Some noble Lords may remember a wonderfully cogent and funny speech made by the late Lord Butler of Saffron Walden. As Master of Trinity, the great Cambridge College whose fortunes are so closely intertwined with those of the Felixstowe dock, Rab was highly interested in the Bill. He pointed out that Trinity harboured as many Nobel prize winners as France and that Felixstowe's development would allow his great college to keep up the good work.
I can honestly say that looking back on my 15 years of fascinating and always challenging work on the Front Benches—whether on this side or the opposite side of your Lordships' House—I can think of few cases where one had a positive effect for improvement or good. Sometimes it is possible to stop silly things being done and sometimes one can spread a little light in respect of individual cases or issues. However, in general it is given to few Ministers or spokesmen to make a impact with something which is wholly and unalterably for the better. If St. Peter ever asks my guardian angel what use I have been in British politics I hope he will say, "At least he did something to help Felixstowe".
1014
We in this House now have a second chance to play a vital role in the future of Felixstowe—and not only Felixstowe but this country's trading position in the world. The port is now working at full capacity and urgently requires further room for expansion. The Bill before us will allow it to expand its boundaries by a futher 1,000 metres along the northern bank of Harwich harbour. In addition, some 95 hectares (226 acres) of land will be involved for cargo handling and storage and approximately half of that amount will be reclaimed from the shallows of the harbour.
It is the intention of the port to develop that area over the next decade in order to provide three container terminals capable of handling the largest container ships afloat. Nowadays the containers are carried on vessels as large as the "Queen Elizabeth II". They can carry over 4,000 of the great boxes at one time. Felixstowe's development plan aims to cater for those ships. The port already has an impressive record and I suggest that it can have an even more impressive future.
In 1986—that was 10 years after your Lordships' previous debate on the issue—the port opened Trinity container terminal, which was built at a cost of more than £42 million. It is by far the most advanced container terminal in the United Kingdom. Its quayside cranes are British produced, created through collaboration between the port and a British crane-maker. They have broken new ground in an industry where Britain used to be behind other parts of the world. The cranes can each handle one container a minute and on the strength of their performance at Felixstowe they have won valuable export orders, particularly from the Far East. This machinery has provided employment in its construction for suppliers in the Midlands, the North-East of England and Scotland.
Not surprisingly in view of such a success story the demand from ship operators to use the terminal has been very high. Hence the port desperately needs further land for expansion to satisfy both the needs of its existing customers and a number of potential new customers who are now seeking to visit our shores for the first time.
I should like to say a word about the cost. The cost of the proposed development is estimated at well over £100 million and the expansion would create a further 3,000 jobs in the port and ancillary industries. Not one penny of government money is involved in this exciting development. If this Bill fails then the jobs will be lost not only to Suffolk but to the United Kingdom as a whole. The reason is simply that the major shipping lines of the world will go to Europe where still subsidised ports are hungry for cargo. We risk leaving this country as an off-shore island of the wealthiest part of the Continental mainland.
I think it incontrovertible that Felixstowe is for most of the world's container shipping lines the preferred United Kingdom port of call. No other United Kingdom port has the capacity or the record to handle these vessels. I acknowledge that there are a handful of ambitious plans to develop ports in the South-East of the country, but new container facilities are required urgently here, required now and not at some distant point in the future. Felixstowe and only Felixstowe is prepared to start work on a

1015
new container terminal at once. The port's parent company, the P&O group, has said that an immediate investment of £35 million is available to develop the first phase of this scheme virtually as soon as the Bill is enacted, as I sincerely hope it will be with the minimum of delay.
I believe that this need for expansion is not liable to be affected in any significant way by the Channel Tunnel. The container vessels at Felixstowe usually hail from outside Europe and in any case, British exporters will require a mix of routes and systems for their goods in the future.
I have talked about the need to avoid delay. I must remind your Lordships that this Bill has already been severely delayed since its first appearance in Parliament just over three years ago. It was the subject of record-breaking scrutiny by a committee in another place, which concluded:
"There is no alternative port to Felixstowe if the United Kingdom is to maintain progressive, deep water container facilities to rival those found in continental Europe".
This sensible conclusion was achieved in the teeth of what can only be called an Opposition filibuster.
The debate was protracted, for example, by the following enlightening topics. There was the issue as to whether the giant-killing exploits of Colchester United Football Club in the FA Cup could be due to eating local oysters. There was the imitation of the cry of a Brent goose, which Hansard with its customary ingenuity transcribed as "gruk, gruk, gruk." There was a debate as to whether the Brent geese would end up on the plates of diners on P&O cruise ships. There was the issue of the lack of parrots on Fagbury mudflats. There was a debate comparing the population of little-ringed plovers to the strength of the Alliance. There was a debate as to the effect of a wood preservative on bats. There was a debate on the comparative efficiency of bucket and suction pump dredgers. There was a debate on the proper use of House of Commons notepaper and envelopes and on the poll tax in Scotland.
It is that sort of to-do which gives another place a bad name and even the least partisan of your Lordships might think it give the Labour Party a bad name. I notice that a great hero of mine in the Labour movement—the scourge of Militant— the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is the Opposition spokesman tonight. Surely he will be aware that Labour programmes do not come inexpensively and a future Labour Government would need all the economic activity or tax revenue that it could command.
I believe that it is in our urgent national interest to allow Felixstowe to expand further to cater for major world shipping lines. If we fail in this way, the shipping lines and trading routes will pass us by. The result will be that more and more cargo will be unloaded at major Continental ports like Rotterdam and Antwerp. The cargo will then be moved onto smaller ships for transport to the UK. That will inevitably lead to delays, double handling charges and all the predictable knock-on costs which will add to the costs of our exporters and of consumers and places us all at a great disadvantage in world markets.
This threatening mode of transport is described as transhipment and has increased so alarmingly in
1016
recent years that the Department of Transport is worried by the rising trend and has instigated an investigation into that area. Surely in the face of that kind of concern we should do nothing to lead to any increase in transhipment.
Today we have been debating the Employment Bill. One of Felixstowe's major attractions to ship operators has been its excellent labour relations and these have been a major feature of the port for the past 30 years. Throughout that period employment has risen steadily and emphatically from fewer than two dozen people to the current figure of 1,850. Unhappily, this industrial peace has not been mirrored in other British ports during the same period. I am informed that, while industrial relations have improved in the port industry as a whole, still nearly 19,500 working days were lost through stoppages in British ports in 1985 and 1986. In the same period not a single working day was lost in Felixstowe.
In many ways Felixstowe is a model of industrial relations. We hear much today about the advantages of single union agreements. That was a trail blazed in Felixstowe many years ago. Of course I acknowledge that it is a closed shop with all its employees belonging to the Transport and General Workers' Union. The union at the port is fully in support of the development, which it sees as not only securing present employment but also as providing new employment for the future. However, regrettably some things have not changed in the last 12 years. Not for the first time, both at Felixstowe and elsewhere in this country, local union members are at odds with their leaders nationally. At national level the TGWU opposes the expansion of the port. The reason is that Felixstowe remains outside the National Dock Labour Scheme—that fascinating piece of legislation which promises dockers jobs for life. If anything has reduced employment in docking, it is so elitist a concept (if I may put it that way). Felixstowe seeks to add to the stock of real and, therefore, maintainable employment.
There is another source of opposition to this Bill. Inevitably in this crowded island no development can take place without some impact on the neighbouring environment and in the few moments I have left to me it is to this area I wish to turn. The land involved in the port's expansion plans is owned by Trinity College, Cambridge, being part of a larger agricultural estate which the college acquired, with uncanny prescience, half a century ago. The port development is supported by the college and its governing body. The college council voted in favour of the development by 48 votes to nil, subject to a number of environmental safeguards. These have now been met in full by the promoters.
Because the extension impinges on the edge of the Suffolk coast and heath area of outstanding natural beauty, the promoters have had to pass a more stringent examination of their proposals than would otherwise be the case. That is completely right and just, even though we must remember that the area of outstanding natural beauty in Suffolk covers 150 square miles whereas the port extension with which I am dealing covers one-third of a square mile; about 0.25 per cent. of the whole.

1017
I have recently returned from a visit to the area. There is much validity in the argument that the particular stretch of land involved is less valuable and less beautiful than other areas near to it further up the River Orwell. At these upstream points the estuary valley is wooded and undulating. The expansion area is, by contrast, low lying drained marshland comprising 90 acres of rather poor agricultural land separated by a sea wall from an area of approximately 140 acres of salt marsh, creek and mud flats—the latter exposed at low tide. I have arranged for an exhibition of photographs of the area to be put in the Moses Room to demonstrate this point.
The dock company, sensitive that it is developing into a greenfield site, proposed a large-scale landscaping scheme to soften the impact of the development on the surrounding areas. About half a million trees will be planted, mainly deciduous, creating close to 85 acres of additional woodland, copse and hedgerows—something which I suggest East Anglia generally badly needs. The company has also reached agreement with the Suffolk County Council and Suffolk Coastal District Council on a detailed environmental package. Neither of those important local authorities oppose the port expansion. Moreover, the company has listened intently to the environmental lobby and in negotiations has offered to provide a nature reserve of more than 200 acres immediately adjoining the proposed port expansion area.
I suggest that that will serve two valuable purposes. It will act as a further buffer between the port and the surrounding landscape and also provide an alternative habitat for birds who may be displaced by the port development. If your Lordships will be so kind as to visit the Moses Room exhibition you will see that this is not some way away but on land immediately adjoining the proposed infill.The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has agreed that such a nature reserve could, if properly managed, attract birds in nationally significant numbers.
The port authority has entered into a written agreement with Trinity College, Cambridge and the Suffolk County Council to provide this nature reserve and a suitable lump sum for its immediate establishment costs. Perhaps I may also add that once this new nature reserve is in place it will make any further development or extension of the dock pretty well impossible on that line.
The proposed port development, the nature reserve and the woodland, will be removing agricultural land from production at a time when we are facing enormous food surpluses and I know that this House has often expressed a wish that this should be so. In addition—and this is where the shades of Rab Butler may be smiling upon us—the development will provide Trinity College, Cambridge with additional income for education and research; research not only in Trinity but in other colleges by way of the inter-college support system.
My Lords, if this Bill is good for Trinity it is, even more importantly, good for Felixstowe, good for East Anglia, good for employment and good for the British economy generally. I commend the Bill to the House.
1018
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
8.16 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the promoters of this Bill must be grateful that they not only have the Holy Trinity on their side but also the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie. It is good to see him back making a major speech in this House. One wonders why he ever left us, though he gave us some indication at the time. I have only one quarrel with the noble Earl; that is, he said that Felixstowe is not a name to conjure with like Liverpool. As a Mancunian, I would dispute that.
The only reason I feel it necessary to intervene tonight is that I notice that my honourable and right honourable friends in another place, apart from voting on the side of the angels, did not intervene and I therefore felt it proper that someone should speak from these Benches, though this is not strictly a party matter.
I believe that we ought to look to Felixstowe as a good indication of what this country can do when it really tries. I do not want to follow the noble Earl on some of the more partisan remarks that he made, but the fact is that Felixstowe has been a success. It is an example of enterprise. Being in favour of a mixed economy, as we are on these Benches, we are very glad to see this part of the mix succeeding, as it undoubtedly has done. There is no doubt that anything which helps to win business back from Rotterdam in particular, and from the Continent in general, must be good for the country. One of the great problems that we have had in this country is that so much of the container traffic which is essential to our development, as well as Europe's, has gone via Rotterdam and, as the noble Earl said, has been transhipped here, which cannot be the most efficient or cheapest way of dealing with such traffic.
A study of what was said in another place on this subject, going back over a number years, makes it a little difficult to sort out the wheat from the chaff. Indeed, the all-night sitting to which the noble Earl referred was largely unhelpful in terms of dealing with the issues at stake. The noble Earl gave us a quick rundown on many of the subjects that were discussed that night. I do not pretend that we have any right in this House to be censorious about what goes on in another place, which has different rules of conduct—that is entirely up to them. In this House we tend to listen to what is being said, whereas in the other place they have to resort to other methods to produce the results they want. The result in the case of the all-night sitting was the loss of Scottish business the following day, which did not endear some of those Members to their Scottish colleagues.
When all is boiled down, there seem to have been two principal objections raised over a long period of time. They are: the effect on other ports and the effect on the environment. As was pointed out in the other place at some length, there are about 299 other ports, and I suspect that most of the honourable and right honourable Members who represent those ports rose at some stage in the course of that long night's debate to refer to their local constituency.

1019
It seems to me that it would be wrong to restrict the development at Felixstowe in order to force business to go to other ports. As we have seen, historically, business does not necessarily go to other British ports. It tends to go to Rotterdam or Antwerp as the noble Earl has said. The way around this dilemma is surely to try to produce the most efficient cargo handling facilities that we can have in this country. Felixstowe has undoubtedly led the way in relation to container terminals.
Behind all this there is no doubt that a great deal of the pressure has come from national officers of the Transport and General Workers' Union and their supporters in another place. I do not want to be too censorious about that but it is very easy to make a comparison between Felixstowe, which has been an expanding port over a number of years, and places like Liverpool and Southampton, which have been contracting. It is perfectly understandable that people who see their jobs at risk, as they have done over many, many years. tend to become embattled and to hide behind restrictive practices of one kind or another. It may not be very admirable but it is a perfectly human way of dealing with the situation.
That is not to say that we should attempt to reproduce at Felixstowe what has happened in other ports up and down the country to the detriment of trade in this country and to the long-term detriment of jobs in places like Liverpool and Southampton. That applies also to my home port of Manchester—a fairly considerable port not long ago. Changes in the world economy and in the cotton trade together with various other factors have come to bear on these subjects and we must move with the times. Felixstowe has been able to expand because of the way in which the European Common Market has got its act together and the way in which trade has moved from the west to the east coast.
I worked for a company in the petroleum chemical industry which had a large plant on the western side of the country. We suffered badly because another very large company based at Billingham and Wilton found it much easier to supply raw materials into Europe from the east coast rather than from the west coast. These are the facts of economic history; we have to adapt to them. Nevertheless, one has to understand that the adaptation may not be easy for individual people working within a particular industry and in a particular place.
These objections are not to be pooh-poohed. They have to be taken seriously. On the other hand, they must not be allowed to act as roadblocks in the way of progress. The other objections are, as I say, environmental objections to which the noble Earl has referred. It seems, on a fairly cursory examination of what was done in another place, that most of the environmental objections have in truth been dealt with. I well understand that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds can hardly withdraw its objection totally when it is dealing with an area of outstanding natural beauty. It would be too much to ask that it should just back away. There is no doubt, I believe, that it will wish to present its case again to the Select Committee of this House.
1020
I hope that today the Bill will be given a Second Reading and sent to the Select Committee. It seems strange, does it not, that we have to go through this protracted procedure. Surely, we must find a way of getting our act together with another place when it comes to Select Committees on these kinds of Bills so that we do not have to go round the same piece of track over and over again. There may be those who say that the Private Bill procedure is not appropriate for dealing with major developments of this sort. That is not a matter for debate tonight, but it is something that has to be borne in mind. There must be better ways of dealing with important Bills and issues of this kind rather than spending year after year with the same objections coming up over and over again, being answered and dealt with, and then raised once more.
I hope that the members of the Select Committee will give a fair hearing to the petitioners who come before it. I am sure that they will. I hope, at the end of the day, if any new genuine objections are made, the promoters of the Bill will see their way to meeting those objections as best they can and as they have done, I believe, so far. Having done so, I believe that this Bill should pass through all its stages as quickly as possible.
8.25 p.m.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I am sure the whole House is grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, for introducing this Bill in such a detailed and, if I may say so, such a masterly way. We have heard from the noble Earl of the great success of Felixstowe. In 1987, 744,000 containers were moved, which puts Felixstowe among the largest and most successful ports in the world.
This growth has been very rapid in the past seven years, helped by the new container berth developments which the noble Earl touched upon. The general success of Felixstowe has come about for a number of reasons. It happened to be expanding in the 1960s at a time when the shipping industry was undergoing profound change. The container and the roll-on/roll-off business was getting under way. Felixstowe was well placed at that time to construct what was the first purpose-built container quay in the country.
As we have heard, since then Felixstowe has gone from strength to strength. It has been helped by its location. It is only just across the sea, so to speak, from the great Continental ports of Antwerp, Rotterdam, Zeebrugge, Hamburg and others. This proximity greatly facilitates the shipping industry. It is very easy to add Felixstowe as a call for ships before they head off to other destinations around the world.
The third reason for the success, which the noble Earl outlined very well, has been enlightened management and good labour relations. The management has been quick to take up any new development. It was a pioneer of computer customs clearance that has now been copied throughout the country. The second phase of development is about to come on stream. Another example of the enlightened management comes from the magazine Freight Forwarding. A gentleman whose company

1021
has just moved its business from the Medway to Felixstowe says:
"The attitude here is so different from other ports; if we anticipate a problem and go to the port, they say 'we'll overcome it', then tackle it head on".
The labour relations side, as I have said, has been extremely good thanks to the enlightened decision taken by this House some 12 years ago. But, fairly recently, there has been what I might call a slight hiccup. I think it was part and parcel of the problems of a new management taking over and wanting to do things in a slightly different way. I understand that these problems have now been resolved.
It has been argued that the success of Felixstowe has been gained at the expense of the other UK ports and to a certain extent I suppose that is true. But if Felixstowe had not been there, that business would have undoubtedly gone across to the Continental ports. This success also breeds success. I believe it is true to say that some of the success of Felixstowe has rubbed off onto the other haven ports, as they are known, which are Ipswich and Harwich. However, this successful growth has brought with it its own problems the chief of which is a lack of space. Congestion has now become a major problem in the port. I quote what one agent said recently:
"The port side is the best in the world; but the land side is becoming the worst".
That lack of space is causing all kinds of problems to agents, to freight forwarders, to lorry drivers and indeed to the whole commercial network that uses the port. It is also hindering the attraction of new traffic to the port. Potential customers come along and ask, "Where is the additional traffic going to go?", and at the moment the port cannot always give them an answer. The company P&O which runs the port is aware of these failings. It is recruiting more staff and introducing more machinery. It is also extending the new Trinity quay to the present limits of the port's authority, beyond which it has nowhere else to go if the Bill is not accepted.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the conservation issues. These have been thoroughly debated in another place and a number of additions have been made to the Bill which help with this matter. I feel, however, that on balance commercial reality should prevail in this instance. A successful port such as Felixstowe greatly facilitates and enhances trade, the lifeblood of our nation, from which we all benefit indirectly. Customers are queueing up to use the facilities at Felixstowe and this logical extension of its limits should be allowed to proceed. I say "logical" because if noble Lords look at the map in the Moses Room they will see that there is nowhere else for the port to go. The sea is on one side and the town of Felixstowe is on the other. This is the only possible direction in which it can expand.
If your Lordships' Select Committee which is to hear the petitions against the Bill is able further to improve what I might call the environmental discredits of the Bill, I shall give it my wholehearted support, but not at the expense of stopping or stalling further this very necessary and overdue development.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I echo other noble Lords in welcoming the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie,
1022
who opened this debate. It was good to hear him and his cogent arguments. I am certain that the Select Committee—and I am assuming that the Bill will go to a Select Committee—will find his remarks most helpful in considering the evidence.
Perhaps I may make it clear that, although the noble Earl referred to me as being the Opposition spokesman on transport, on all Private Bills we do not take an official party line. Therefore I am speaking entirely in a personal capacity. As he said, the Bill has had a very difficult career since it was first introduced. It was deposited first in the other place in November 1984, three and a half years ago, and had its Second Reading in May 1985. It had a very complicated passage through another place. Although the noble Earl referred jocularly to certain of the protracted discussions, for my sins I have not read the detailed evidence before the Select Committee. However I read 350 pages of Hansard of another place and I can say that the matter is not entirely on the lines that he suggested.
It ought to be appreciated that after the Second Reading the original committee had to be reformed and that two carry-over Motions were hotly contested. The reformed committee proceeded with only two members. I shall not go into the arguments as to why this happened but there were only two members. During a debate in July 1986 there were complaints that the procedure followed enabled a commercial company such as the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company and an absentee landlord such as Trinity College, Cambridge, to which reference has been made, to make a profit from a commercial development while not going through normal planning procedure. This point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. In fact it was said that in effect the company became its own planning authority.
Noble Lords will recall that only last Wednesday we debated the 13th report of the Nature Conservancy Council. I shall quote the following extract from page 55:
"The NCC is concerned at recent proposals for port developments and other proposals which affect SSSIs and, in particular, estuaries of national and international importance for wildlife. By contrast to the planning system, through which such developments would normally proceed, no environmental impact assessment is required".
In its main conclusions the Select Committee of another place said:
"The Committee believes that for commercial and strategic reasons Britain must have ports which are capable of providing the service that is expected of them in the market place by the users".
That point was made some two years ago. The Select Committee also concluded:
"The only real alternatives, it seems to us. to Felixstowe, are Southampton, London and Harwich, but these ports have a variety of problems which discourage their growth and they have not shown any active intention to expand the provisions of container berths. It therefore appears that there is no alternative port to Felixstowe".
So the committee concluded that the expansion of Felixstowe capacity is in the national interest.
In debates in another place, Member after Member stressed the availability of container capacity in their respective constituencies. Those remarks were not confined solely to the three ports referred to in the Select Committee's conclusions. It is now generally acknowledged that there is already an excess of deep-sea container capacity in the country as a whole. The

1023
argument that the development is vital in the national interest does not appear to hold water. The noble Earl referred to the Channel Tunnel. I know that one can take things out of their context but I understand that the managing director of the Felixstowe company admitted to the Select Committee that the Channel Tunnel had not entered into his traffic considerations. One can understand that point because the project for the Channel Tunnel had not then been determined and the Bill had not then been through the other place or through this House.
The Select Committee has been somewhat overtaken by events. It referred to the fact that the three ports had not shown any active intention to expand the provision of container berths. But the Harwich Parkeston Quay Bill had its Second Reading in another place on 3rd June 1986 and its Third Reading as recently as 13th July 1987. At the Second Reading of the Bill—and noble Lords who know their geography better than I do will realise that Felixstowe is on one side of the estuary and Harwich is on the other side—it was stated that the Harwich Bill provides for 300 acres of mud to be reclaimed. a substantial seawall to be created and development to be undertaken for the handling of 100,000 containers a year with an overall investment plan of £100 million.
It should be remembered that this proposed development is on the side of the estuary opposite to Felixstowe. The Harwich Parkeston Quay Bill had its Second Reading, without discussion in your Lordships' House, only on 26th October 1987. It is still in your Lordships' Select Committee. When there are two developments of that kind—and I have no authority for saying this—does not common sense suggest that they should be considered in tandem because they are each side of an estuary?
Apart from the development argued as being in the national interest, there is the equally important aspect of the environment as has been stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. The Felixstowe port expansion is in a north-westerly direction up the Orwell Estuary in an area of outstanding beauty. It is argued that the Harwich Parkeston Quay Bill does not hold such a danger to the environment.
I referred to the consideration given to the 13th report of the Nature Conservancy Council. On page 10 one finds the following:
"Impact assessments are needed in such cases to estimate the consequences to the natural environment so that the balance to the national interest of conservation and development can be properly determined".
That seems to be a vital question, whether the interests of environment and of development can be properly determined.
Then there is the view of the Countryside Commission that the siting of major industrial and commercial development in an area of natural beauty should be permitted only where there is proven national interest and lack of alternative sites. I understood that that was also the view of the Government. I do not believe the environmental case against Felixstowe has been adequately answered. It was opposed by the RSPB and also by the Ramblers Association. I understand that the RSPB will be
1024
tabling a petition to the Bill if it goes to a Select Committee in your Lordships' House.
Also the Nature Conservancy Council, which is the official body which advises the Government, did not give evidence to the committee. To quote from the 13th report of the NCC, which was considered only last Wednesday:
"By convention the NCC has not usually petitioned Parliament against Private Bills; instead we reported to the DoE which has undertaken to annex our report to the department's own submission to the Parliament Select Committee. While this arrangement may have worked well in the past, the fact that it did not permit the NCC to present evidence directly or to question the inclusion led us to believe that the conservation case could be made more effectively if we were able to petition the Select Committee directly".
In other words, the NCC is complaining that the procedure followed did not enable it to give evidence directly to the Select Committee considering the Felixstowe Bill.
I understand that the report of the Nature Conservancy Council presented to the DoE, to be added to its own submission, stated as follows:
"The Nature Conservancy Council note that the Bill would result in the destruction of nature conservation interests in an area identified as a proposed site of special scientific interest under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and as a site which qualifies for protection under international agreements to which the United Kingdom is a party. This destruction would represent a further loss of habitat following the loss of approximately 10 per cent. of the saltmarsh which. together with adjacent mudflats. was covered by the present docks and industrial developments".
The concluding paragraph of the Nature Conservancy Council report on the matter is:
"In view of all I have said, the Nature Conservancy Council has advised that the passage of this Bill would lead to serious damage to nature conservation interests and the national and international status of the Orwell Estuary. The Nature Conservancy Council consider that the interests of nature conservation would be best served if the Bill is not enacted".
That is the conclusion of the official body set up by the Government to advise them on conservation matters.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord could help me on this. I am genuinely asking for help. What was the date of that submission? Was it before the Select Committee of another place or afterwards?
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the reference I have is May 1985.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again but the noble Lord may be aware that the Nature Conservancy Council has in fact petitioned us against the Bill in this House, and it will therefore be heard by the Select Committee.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I was aware of that, and I was endeavouring not to refer to a petition that may be presented, because it will be a matter for the committee to consider, and undoubtedly it will follow up the evidence which at the moment has been submitted through the DoE.
We have the position where the area in question comprises land which forms part of an area of outstanding natural beauty. It is part of a site of special scientific interest. It is part of a site which is a candidate for listing as a wetland of international importance under the RAMSAR Convention. It is

1025
part of a site which qualified for special protection under EC Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds. Those four very important points cannot be dismissed idly.
The evidence seems to suggest that there is an excess of container capacity elsewhere; and it is correct that the Harwich Parkston Quay development is also going through your Lordships' House for large-scale container development. The definite conclusion of the Select Committee in another place, which I would remind your Lordships finished with only two members, is that this Bill is in the national interest and also can surmount the environmental problems which have been raised.
I suggest that what has been said tonight indicates to the Select Committee that it should give the most serious consideration to the petitions that may he presented—I understand that there will be petitions, as the noble Lord said—because the last thing one would want is a development taking place which may not be necessary in the light of other excess capacity in the country and because there is a complete absence of any national ports policy in this country, a policy for which my party has been pressing. In addition, by considering this in isolation we could be creating serious damage to the environment in the area.
8.47 p.m
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, permit me to echo the words of other noble Lords and say how good it was to hear from my noble friend Lord Gowrie again this evening after too long an absence.
As my noble friend said in his excellent opening speech, this Bill is one of the most controversial Private Bills ever to have reached your Lordships' House from another place. The controversy has been inevitable because two diverse interests are competing for the same area of land. The interests are the country's maritime trade, represented by the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, and the conservation of the landscape and the wildlife, especially birds, that use the tidal flats that the company wishes to develop.
The customary approach of governments to Private Bills at the Second Reading stage is to suggest that they should be given a Second Reading. This is not because the Government necessarily support them but because they believe that the best way for a judgment to be formed on the merits of Private Bills is for them to be examined in detail by the Select Committee. It is then for the promoters of a Private Bill to attempt to convince the committee of its merits, while any petitioners will attempt to persuade it that it ought to be rejected or amended. That was the attitude taken by my honourable friend the Minister responsible for public transport when the Bill came up for Second Reading in another place. We all know that after being examined at some length by a Select Committee the Bill was returned to the Floor of the House with some amendments and that it only completed its stages there with extreme difficulty.
1026
At this stage perhaps I should say just a few words on the point which has been raised this evening about planning procedures versus the private Bill. I fear that there is a good deal of misunderstanding of this subject. I very much hope that the deliberations of the present Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedures will do much to dispel it. The fact is that generally promoters cannot seek a Private Act as an alternative to the use of planning procedures. They can only use a Bill if other authorities are needed which can only be got from Parliament; for example, amendments to powers, rights or restrictions granted by Parliament. Where a Bill is needed anyway, it makes sense for Parliament to consider too the planning matters, to avoid double process. The exception is harbour proposals where the Harbours Act 1964 gives a choice between an order made by the Secretary of State (following public inquiry, if necessary) and a Private Bill. The Felixstowe Bill does, however, in addition, contain provisions which could not have been included in an order.
I recommended that your Lordships too should now give this Bill a Second Reading. In doing so, I am only following the usual precedent. I am not suggesting that the judgment of this House should in any way be bound by the judgment of another place. I know too well how much your Lordships value the independence of this House and I am second to none in cherishing this independence myself. However, there are seven petitions against the Bill and there is much detailed argument to be heard. I do not think that justice could be done to the case for this Bill without its appearance before a Select Committee. I therefore recommend to your Lordships that the Bill should be given a Second Reading today.
8.51 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am very grateful to all those noble Lords who have spoken and indeed for their welcoming me back. This made me feel that I almost ought to have asked for your Lordships' indulgence as a maiden speaker. Nevertheless it was very kind, and the debate was also gratifying to all those who believe that this House is perhaps the best House for measured consideration of issues of this kind.
My noble friend Lord Brabazon was admirably impartial and judicial when he talked about two diverse interests being represented this evening: the country's maritime interest, to which as a member of Her Majesty's Government he can hardly be indifferent, and the interest of nature conservancy. Like me, he is probably one of those Tories who want the blue always to be tinged with green. But my view is that the nature conservancy argument is not an argument that we who believe in this Bill would seek in any way to belittle. We believe that it should be taken on and that it should be tackled as a problem rather than as an argument.
Certainly what convinced me was walking the ground. I hope that as many of your Lordships as possible who are interested in this issue, and I dare to hope as many members of the Select Committee as possible, will physically walk the ground or at the very least examine most carefully the photographs. They will then be able to measure its interests against

1027
those maritime interests of which my noble friend spoke. They will be able to see what else is available in the area for the contemplation of beauty and for the activities of wildlife and also consider what the Bill's proponents wish to put into the area so as to augment its natural beauty and improve its habitats for wildlife.
Nature is a much tougher old lady than we sometimes give her credit for being. One of the things I noticed on my walk was how tame the birds appeared to be, how little disrupted by the port that they were working alongside. If the proponents of this Bill were talking of projects which were a considerable distance away from the port, one might view their arguments with a little more suspicion. But the fact is that everything that is being proposed for improved conservancy is beside the port.
It is also important that a lively human scene, a scene of bustle and purpose, has always been compatible with all but the most romantic wildernesses of nature, and East Anglia is almost entirely a man-made creation. I personally find very exciting the combination of the natural beauties of the Stour and Orwell basin with the cranes and rigs out to sea, which is how they appear when one is walking by the river. Certainly in the classical world and in the art of the Mediterranean countries it is the interaction between landscape and human activity that has always been of special appeal.
The Bill received a strong degree of support in your Lordships' House tonight. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, as we would expect of him, was scrupulously fair and simply outlined to your Lordships some of the objections which may be made and which may have to be considered. But I was certainly very pleased that no one suggested that this Bill should not go forward to the Committee of your Lordships' House, and in that spirit I again commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

London City Airport
8.56 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their latest assessment of the operational problems of London City Airport; of the long-term future, viability and safety of operations; and of the improved access points of the airport.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in rising to ask the Question on the London City Airport I should first like to thank those noble Lords who have indicted that they will take part, as I shall have no chance to do so later. I do so with particular respect, in view of the fact that they all took part in the previous debate, and I very much appreciate their keenness in taking part in this short debate as well.
The House will recall that in 1983, following a major planning inquiry, consent was given to transform the disused Royal Docks into a modern STOL airport. It was a bold, exciting and imaginative concept, conceived and funded by private resources by one of the country's most experienced
1028
construction companies, John Mowlem, who deserve great credit for their entrepreneurial courage and the large risk capital that they invested. It was a milestone in positive planning of airports, for in London airport planning issues generally there is a happy knack of taking years to decide even whether there should be one extra terminal at either Heathrow or Gatwick.
This new airport offered three positive planning gains. First, it provided a unique air link on the very doorstep of the City of London, with direct access to capital centres in Europe; an airport only six miles from Throgmorton Street or even the Bank of England and possible only a 10-minute to 15-minute journey when the road and rail links had come into place—this against a journey of one to one-and-a-half hours to either Gatwick or Heathrow.
The second advantage is that, despite its size, this airport can act in the future as a catalyst to the ambitious regeneration schemes of the present dock wasteland, with the major office relocation schemes, the new housing estates making good use of river frontage, the leisure and sports complexes, the exhibition centres, the hotels and shopping, altogether making a most exciting regeneration development. Airports generally create employment and investment. I do not doubt that London City Airport will be no exception when it gets into its stride.
The third simple gain is that the airport can and, one hopes, will make a contribution to easing the severe over-capacity problems facing Heathrow and Gatwick. The airport was opened last November by Her Majesty the Queen and immediately daily services started to Paris, Brussels and Plymouth. Its smart terminal building has a seductive attraction, a feeling almost personal to passengers compared with the somewhat jungle atmosphere of survivial in the latest Heathrow terminal. It has the advantages of a quick check-in and an efficient baggage reclaim. It is fitted with all the latest techniques for foul weather landing and so on. I do not think that anyone could criticise the airport for any lack of operating facilities.
However, the airport is not blessed at present with good ground communications. Roads are uncompleted, often congested and the dockland railway has not reached the immediate area. The proximity to the City is therefore somewhat lost if it takes, on a bad journey by car, 45 minutes to cover the six miles. I hope that my noble friend can reassure us tonight that improvements to the linking of the airport with the City are in the immediate programme.
Besides the need for good communications, the airport, being a STOL airport, requires active protection against the encroachment of new high developments and structures. There is concern already over the possible impact of the high structure design of a suspension bridge linking with the M.25. This structure, if built, would be virtually directly in line with the runway approach. Surely, it would be planning madness if such a structure unwittingly caused a limitation on the future potential use of the airport. I hope that my noble friend can inform us and reassure us on this matter.
The airport is not blessed with clear unrestricted skies above it. At the time of the 1983 planning consent, it was recognised that it was in an area of badly congested air traffic, with the Heathrow approach immediately to the west, Gatwick to the south and Biggin Hill, a very active airfield, even closer. All aspects were considered at great length and with studious care in 1983 before the very large investment in the construction of the airport was embarked upon. The Civil Aviation Authority and NATS, the National Air Traffic Services, gave assurances that flight operations were tenable from the airport. Thames radar was installed as an extra help for take-off and landings as well as assisting other traffic.
It is not hard to sympathise with the airport operator's despair when, barely two months after the inauguration of the Paris service—currently the most important route for the airport—the service was suspended because an airline operator considered the air traffic conditions unacceptable on safety grounds. It is difficult to imagine the damage, albeit temporary, to the public confidence in the airport. The House will recall that the Civil Aviation Authority immediately set up an inquiry. Four weeks later an acceptable solution was found to allow the resumption of the service. This resulted in 10 flights per day being guaranteed access in controlled airspace which happens to be the frequency planned for this summer to Paris.
The suspension of the Paris service leads one to ask what were the services NATS should have been providing in these crowded skies. The evidence is that controlled airspace was never guaranteed, but it was inferred that it would be available occasionally. In fact it was never available at all, right up to the December inquiry. The evidence is also that the advisory radar service from Gatwick would be available but it was only 50 per cent. available at that time. It took a brave and responsible operator to insist on better air traffic facilities. And this was achieved at some commercial cost. It seemed to require the Civil Aviation Authority to set up an inquiry to persuade the NATS to provide the service sought. It is a shame that in the meantime the airport had to suffer.
NATS has a proud record of safety in the control of our skies. The 1,300 controllers are expertly trained and dedicated, despite the present frictions. It is worth recalling that even with the dramatic stories of near-misses in the past week, the recorded figures for near-misses in 1986 were 16 cases and in 1976, 10 years earlier, 45 cases. If one considers the rapid growth of traffic in the meantime, it is an encouraging trend. However, I would not accuse NATS of being complacent. No one can be.
The major query I have with NATS arising out of the London City Airport experience is that it seems that already there is a lack of controlled airspace capacity. If we have to wait until 1990 to 1995 when its major investment programme is implemented, the matter will get a great deal worse. The consequence will be that air travellers must expect to tolerate increasing delays at airports in order to ensure safety.
That is an obvious priority; but so is accommodating traffic of today's proportions in the
1030
appropriate controlled airspace required. London City Airport is a very exciting concept. It deserves to succeed, for its success can bring great benefit both to the City and to the docklands. I hope that tonight my noble friend will confirm that the Government have a belief in its future, that they support improved vital ground facilities, that they are very much aware of the air traffic problems the airport has faced and that they will maintain watchfulness in allowing the airport to flourish in the future.
9.8 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, noble Lords will be most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for putting down this Question tonight. It gives us the opportunity to express views on a number of related subjects. I shall be quite brief. I believe this development in London docklands to be very exciting. It heralds enormous potential, not only for the City of London but for other major cities in this country and indeed in Europe. The ability to be able to get to an airport which is close to an office and to fly into another airport which is equally close to an office is something that many businessmen would be delighted to achieve.
The support in principle for the airport is unstinted from these Benches. But, like the noble Earl, we have been extremely worried by some of the things that have been happening in recent times, particularly relating to air safety. One must be extremely careful how one phrases remarks about air safety; otherwise one is accused of being intemperate and making foolish remarks. Indeed, the leader of my party, the right honourable David Steel, was vigorously attacked by the Secretary of State for scaremongering. That occurred last October. But I think that in the light of events that have taken place since than it was quite wise of him to draw people's attention to the possible dangers to air safety.
Nothing can be absolutely safe. Not even lying in bed can be absolutely safe. An awful lot of people die in bed. Air travel will never be 100 per cent. safe, but we must do our best to ensure that human error is reduced to a minimum and that mechanical errors also are reduced to a minimum.
What is necessary is for the Government not to attack people for raising these questions but to ensure that the general public is given that reassurance. Yet in relation to the City airport that we are talking about I think that many of us who started with high hopes for it have become a little worried about someof the incidents which have taken place. There was the fact than an airliner which was using the new airport was near to being in collision with a light aircraft towing a glider over Kent. That was the incident that provoked the withdrawal of the service to which the noble Earl referred. That came as a considerable surprise to those of us who had felt that air traffic conditions would be at least at minimum levels of safety. That strikes me as something that really should have been taken into account long before the incident occurred.
The wider question of air safety in the South-East goes back to discussions which took place last week in this House at Question Time, when there seemed to

1031
be some conflict of opinion between the chairman of the British Airports Authority and the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority as to whether the skies and the runway capacity in the South-East were reaching saturation.
When we were talking about fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh terminals at Heathrow the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked where it would all end. We cannot go on for ever. Have we begun now to reach saturation point or are the commercial pressures going to produce a reduction in safety standards which certainly to us would be unacceptable
I do not think that that is the situation, but the Government must take seriously these kinds of comments. Setting aside some of the scarier stories in the popular press, the Government must recognise that there are genuine fears among the travelling public. It is the Government's job to make sure that the investment is there and that the levels of salary and support are there for people doing this extremely difficult and tedious job of ensuring that aircraft come in to Greater London safely. It is the Government's job to make sure that morale among air traffic controllers is improved. Clearly they are also negotiating in some of these discussions, but it is the general public who must be reassured.
I take the point that the noble Earl made about the Dartford bridge. This bears particularly on the question of the use of jet aircraft into the new airport. I know that assurances were given when the airport was first built that no jet aircraft would land there, but that was presumably on the basis of the degree of noise which would come from such aircraft. If it were possible to produce jet aircraft which were less noisy than some of the conventional aircraft which are at present using the airport, I personally would have no objection to those aircraft being allowed to use it. But the flightpath of those aircraft would be different from that of the current aircraft. That is where the Dartford crossing becomes a very important factor. I think that the existing aircraft can probably cope perfectly well with the new Dartford crossing bridge, but it is very doubtful whether the BAE 146 would be capable of coping with such a structure.
I hesitate to go back to a debate that we had on the Dartford Tunnel, when the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford, spoke in your Lordships' House. I supported the view then that the Government were being very shortsighted in insisting on having tolls on that tunnel on a motorway. It seems to me that there would be room for more flexibility if they would remove the tolls from the existing tunnel. Then there would be much greater capacity at peak hours and perhaps this bridge would not be needed quite so soon. But in any case I believe that the bridge is being discussed in another place about now. Therefore, it may be that what I am saying is a bit premature. Nevertheless, I think that the noble Earl is right to draw the matter to your Lordships' attention. There is a contradiction in building a new crossing at a point which appears to be liable to inhibit use of the new airport.
As regards access, many of us have been disappointed that access to the airport appears to be more restrictive than we had hoped. The extension of
1032
the Docklands Light Railway will help but it will not solve the problem totally. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House what steps the Government will take to ensure access to an asset which is particularly valuable to the City of London and which should be used to its maximum. I leave the matter there.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the widespread nature of his Question. Some noble Lords may think that that is a curious statement in that it will require a number of substantial statements from the Minister. However, the question is very wide, and wisely so.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, I give a general welcome to the development of the London City Airport. As the noble Earl has rightly said, it is an imaginative venture, less than six miles from the business centre of the City of London. It is an important development. Presumably the passenger traffic at the airport will be mainly businessmen moving to and from the City. Has there been any analysis of the passengers who have started to use the airport? I understand that the passenger limit is 1½ million per annum according to the planning permission which was originally given. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House something about the present likelihood of development. Is that figure likely to be achieved or will the traffic fall short of the planning permission limit?
As has been rightly said by both noble Lords speaking so far in the debate, there is criticism that the Docklands Light Railway has no station with direct access to the airport. In an oral Answer on 1st February, the Secretary of State admitted that that was the position. He agreed that the proposed extension will not go exactly to the airport. When is the extension likely to be completed? Will there be a shuttle bus service from the nearest Docklands Light Railway station to the airport? That would appear to be essential. I understand that the nearest railway station is Silvertown which is some 300 yards away. I cannot imagine businessmen wishing to trudge 300 yards in some of the rain that we get. Is a bus shuttle service now available from the Silvertown station to the airport?
I believe that there is also criticism of road surface transport to the airport. Some very optimistic times have been quoted for the time it takes a taxi to get from the City to the airport. Speaking as one who occasionally travels on the A.13, I feel that some of those claims are dubious. If we are to make a success of the airport, some improvement must be made to the approach by road.
The airport was not supposed to start operating until local homes had been fitted with double glazing. I understand that only secondary glazing was offered by developers. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether that problem has been overcome. As has been rightly said, larger aircraft cannot be used at the airport. It is limited to aircraft which can safely use the existing runway and meet the noise limits set out in the planning application. Again, on 1st February of this year the Secretary of State stated that the use of any jets at London City Airport would be first a matter for the airport owners. He said that that would also require an entirely new planning

1033
application and that no such application had been made. Does that mean that there will have to another planning application for the use of jets or larger planes? Would that be the case with larger planes which make undue noise?
As has rightly been said by both the noble Lords who have spoken, there is concern about the suspension bridge proposed for the East London river crossing, which I think it is generally agreed would present a very serious obstacle if a jet aircraft such as the British Aerospace 146 were to be used.
I understand from an oral Answer by the Secretary of State on 1st February that the necessary public inquiry has now been completed. Can we know when the report is likely to be available and whether it will be generally publicised?
I propose to quote from CAA press releases and answers to Questions in the other place in putting questions to the Minister to supplement those already presented to him. In a CAA news release of 17th November last there was a reminder that:
"The Public inquiry accepted that flights could not be accommodated in the controlled airspace of the London terminal area because of the density of traffic around Heathrow and Gatwick until major changes in the area had been completed in the early 1990s".
That appears a very serious delay. I shall return to that point shortly.
The CAA also stated in that news release that:
"It would not be possible to accommodate London City and Biggin Hill aircraft in the London terminal area without extending controlled air space".
It also stated that:
"So as not to disrupt air traffic flows to and from Gatwick and Heathrow. aircraft departing from London City Airport will fly outside controlled airspace before joining the airways system some distance away...There are arrangements where public transport flights operate outside controlled airspace, prior to joining the airways system, and those operating at the City Airport are similar to those which apply at a number of other United Kingdom airports"
In that statement the CAA also referred to the radar service which is provided for traffic from Heathrow to London City Airport operating below the controlled airspace. However, I find that on 4th December last Mr. Peter Bottomley, the Under-Secretary of State in a Written Answer (at col. 746 of Commons Hansard) stated that the radar service for:
"aircraft in uncontrolled air space has been available 66 per cent. of the time. Use of the service is not mandatory and it is provided on an on-request basis subject to the capacity of the air traffic unit".
I think that we should ask the Minister exactly what that means. Does it mean that if a request is not made this radar service is not applicable, and what happens for the other third of the time? That is a serious question. On the same day, 4th December 1987, Mr. Peter Bottomley gave another Written Answer in another place:
"The CAA has told us that the NATS is not at present able to introduce procedures to include safely London City Airport traffic within the London terminal manoeuvring area (LTMA). Moreoever, it could not yet be handled there without an unacceptable effect on Gatwick and Heathrow traffic."
The statement emphasised again that that was made absolutely clear during the planning of the airport, and Mr. Bottomley added in his Written Answer that:
"It is unlikely that NATS will be able to implement the necessary changes so as to include London City Ariport within the London
1034
terminal manoeuvring area before the end of 1988". [Official Report, Commons, 4/12/87; col. 744].
This is where my complete innocence of air services comes in, because at one stage there was a reference to its not being able to come into effect until 1990s. What is the difference between the London terminal area and the London terminal manoeuvring area?
The answer to that question will depend on whether I can fully accept that even by the end of 1988 we can have the necessary changes. However, it means that we shall have to wait either until the end of 1988 before we have that essential safety change or until 1990, a date that has been mentioned elsewhere.
On the same day, 4th December, the Minister was asked to give Written Answers to what I thought were two very important points. First, he was asked whether the Secretary of State,
"will institute an inquiry into the dangers that arise from flying in uncontrolled air space over London"
The second question asked what was the Secretary of State's policy,
"for the future control of air movements in uncontrolled air space over the London area"
The Minister, Mr. Peter Bottomley, replied that:
"The Civil Aviation Authority is responsible, through the National Air Traffc Services, for all aspects of airspace management. Any decision to institute an inquiry into flying in uncontrolled air space over London is a matter solely for the authority".—[Officiol Report. Commons, 4/12/87; col. 746.]
I should like to ask the Minister whether the Civil Aviation Authority has any say in that, and, if he considers an inquiry is necessary, whether he will instruct NATS that one should be carried out. Surely in the light of what has happened recently such an inquiry is absolutely essential.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that the last thing one wants to do is to create any nervousness or panic, but in view of what we have now learnt about near misses it is obvious that flying in uncontrolled air space before linking up with the main air space system is something which must give cause for concern.
In a subsequent Written Answer on 19th January this year, the same Minister, Mr. Peter Bottomley, stated that the CAA:
"has no comprehensive information of the amount and categories of aircraft flying in the uncontrolled air space below and surrounding the London terminal control area, but that the authority monitors air traffic in uncontrolled air space on a sample basis so as to establish requirements for specific air traffic services".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/1/88; col. 697.]
Precisely what does that mean? Does it mean that the CAA, as this reply states, has no real influence on the "amount and categories of aircraft" that are flying in the uncontrolled area above the City airport? If so, that appears to me to be a very dangerous situation.
My final reference is to a press release of the Civil Aviation Authority dated 14th January this year, in which it is stated:
"Outside controlled air space it is for the airlines to decide which routes they wish to fly in consultation with the National Air Traffic Service"
I ask again: where does the Civil Aviation Authority stand?

1035
That same press release continues:
"Changes in any extension of the controlled air space would require extensive consultation with other aviation interests and cannot he achieved in a short period of time"
Exactly what does that mean? Precisely what would be the other aviation interests involved?
It may seem from all those questions that I am trying to strike at the London City Airport. I believe that it is a very important development and we have to ensure that there is the best possible access to it and the best possible facilities for business people who wish to use it, but we must also ensure that the question of uncontrolled air space is satisfactorily dealt with.
9.29 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the House is indeed grateful to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for asking this Question, which bears on a matter of such intense public interest as air safety. The general question of air safety is a topic that has greatly exercised the press and other media in recent weeks and it is good that we should have this opportunity for a short debate, albeit in the narrow context of London City Airport. I am glad to have the opportunity both to set the record straight and to try to allay any remaining fears that recent public discussions have provoked.
I must start with the general proposition, since this will condition much of what I say: the safety of operations at London City Airport and the air space used by its aircraft are matters solely for the Independent Civil Aviation Authority. That an independent body should be responsible for aerodrome standards and safety and air traffic control among other matters was a direct result of Parliament's legislation in 1971 which established the authority. It was foreshadowed in the then Labour Government's White Paper of 1969 which followed the Edwards Report.
Let me now turn to London City Airport. The airport, as has been said today, is privately owned by John Mowlem plc and has been operational since 26th October 1987. At present air services are operated to Brussels and Paris. Other route licences exist but have not yet been taken up. Only aircraft capable of short take off and landing performance and which can meet the very strict noise controls may use the airport.
London City Airport is licensed for public use by the Civil Aviation Authority. That means that it must fully meet the authority's requirements for safety and airport emergency services. It is of course, as noble Lords will realise, airport, fire and emergency services which must bear the main responsibility for rescue in the unlikely event of an accident at or close to the airport. In such circumstances speed of reaction is essential. That is why the authority, in fulfilling its licensing functions, set such store by effective on-airport fire and rescue services. External services—particularly ambulance and police—are also vitally important once the most immediate emergency has been dealt with. This is why the authority also needs to be satisfied with the access
1036
points of the airport, to which my noble friend referred. The authority would not license an airport if it were not satisfied on all these matters.
Let me now turn from aerodrome safety to safety in the air. Perhaps I should preface my remarks by recalling that on 18th December 1987, following suggestions by one of the operators. Brymon, that flights below controlled airspace on the London City—Paris route could be unsafe, the CAA provisionally suspended such flights pending the outcome of an inquiry. Flights below controlled airspace are necessary at present because the National Air Traffic Services has not yet been able to contain London City traffic within the London terminal area controlled airspace, although I stress that such operations are provided with radar surveillance. In its conclusion the inquiry recommended three alternative routes and the airlines concerned confirmed that they were competent to operate flights on these routes. Services restarted on 20th January and have operated with no further problems. Indeed, noble Lords will be pleased to hear that traffic on Continental routes out of London City Airport is steadily increasing and the operators are reported to have in mind adding further services.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred to the air misses which had been the subject of this inquiry, of which there were three reported. Two were preliminarily assessed as category C, which means sighting, no risk of collision, while the third might possibly emerge as a category B, a possible risk of collision. It is worth getting the record straight on that point.
Unfortunately, National Air Traffic Services cannot yet extend the London terminal area to include London City Airport. This fact was made clear by the authority at the planning application into London City in 1983. So London City traffic needs to fly below controlled airspace when near London, albeit, as I said, with the benefit of radar surveillance. I can tell noble Lords, however, that the authority is consulting affected interests about extending controlled airspace in the South-East. This might lead to a more comprehensive solution for London City towards the end of this year.
If there has been any confusion over the dates it is because NATS is doing its best to improve on its earlier estimates. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked me what the other affected interests might be. They would be general aviation, private flying and other people operating in the area, including gliders.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. My intervention touches on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, made. There seems to be some conflict between what he said about 66 per cent. radar surveillance and what the Minister has said. Are we talking about the same thing? The Minister said that there was radar surveillance. However, I understood the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, to say that this was only 66 per cent. of the time.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer that question. I must check the matter and write to the noble Lords. I was under the

1037
impression that radar surveillance is continually available but if I am wrong I shall put the record straight.
More generally, I should remind noble Lords that the Civil Aviation Authority is continually striving to improve the air traffic control system. One hundred and twenty-five million pounds was spent on this in the last five years and a further £200 million will be spent in the next five years. In the slightly longer term a centralisation of the control function—that is bringing approach and en route navigation together for London airports—will substantially increase the air traffic control system capacity in the mid-1990s.
As to the long-term future of London City Airport, that must be very largely in the hands of its private sector owners. Clearly any further developments of the airport must be the subjects of' new planning applications. No such application has been lodged. If one is it will he dealt with in accordance with the planning laws. Likewise, the long-term viability of the airport is a matter for its owners.
As regards the long-term safety of the airport, I have already indicated the proposed improvements in air traffic control to deal with the ever-increasing volume of air traffic in the busy South-East region. I have no doubt at all that the Civil Aviation Authority, whose standards of aerodrome and air navigation safety are among the highest in the world, will continue its expert surveillance of London City Airport in just the same way as it does for every other licensed UK airport.
Perhaps it will he appropriate for me to add a more general reference on air safety. It is a topical issue and a matter which is of concern to the public. The recent reported air misses between airliners over Kent and Essex have caused much concern. Noble Lords will already know that, following an approach from the chairman of the CAA, the Chief Inspector of Accidents has ordered an investigation into the incident two weeks ago over Kent. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will publish the chief inspector's report and it will be the responsibility of the CAA to take action on any recommendations that may be made. Of course any relevant implications that arise during the investigation will be passed immediately to the authority and need not wait until the final report is issued. It is for the Chief Inspector of Accidents to decide what the Air Accident Investigations Branch is to investigate. He did not regard yesterday's incident as meriting an AAIB investigation. Having seen some of the details of' the incident, I believe that reports in the press were somewhat exaggerated and that it was not as close an incident as was suggested. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to assume from the incident that flying over the UK is becoming more dangerous.
Facts show that generally the safety trend is improving. For instance, the number of commercial aircraft involved in air misses which were considered to be risk-bearing fell from 45 in 1977 to 15 in 1986, despite a massive increase in traffic over the period, such that over 1 million flights now pass through the London Air Traffic Control Centre airspace each year—a remarkable achievement.
1038
Turning to surface access to the airport, I should like to point out that since the early 1980s, as part of its contribution towards the redevelopment of docklands, the Department of Transport has included in the national trunk road programme a number of schemes to improve access from all directions. That applies particularly to the recently opened South Woodford to Barking relief road, which extends the North Circular Road down to the A.13, and the proposed East London river crossing, which would provide access from the south. The immediate local road access into the airport is being rapidly improved by the Docklands Development Corporation. At the same time a Bill to extend the Docklands Light Railway to Becton is due to start its Committee stage on 1st March in the other place. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked whether there would be a shuttle bus between the airport and the proposed extension. That will be a matter of consideration for London Regional Transport and/or London City Airport.
I should just like to go on to the subject of the East London River Crossing. My noble friend and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, were wrong when they talked about the new Dartford Bridge. That has no possible effect. It is not very near to the airport at all. The cause of concern, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, rightly said, was the proposed East London river crossing. I cannot comment on the implications of that at the moment. My right honourable friend has received the inspector's report and is studying it together with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. They will announce their decision and publish the report as soon as possible, but it will naturally take some time to consider the report of what was an unprecedentedly long inquiry.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, before my noble friend moves from that point, I am sorry if he felt that there was a misunderstanding. The point I wanted to make, and which I hope he can comment on, is that any structure which in the future could limit the natural development of an airport is very important in planning terms and I hope that it will he considered. I hope he can say that this point will be looked at very carefully when full consideration is given to the scheme.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot comment, because the report is in the hands of my right honourable friend at the moment.
A further consideration was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Underhill, about the possible use of jets, in particular BAE 146, at London City. There has never been an assurance that jets would not be used at the airport. The assurance was with regard to the amount of noise which would be created. But I understand that the use of the BAE146 would be likely to involve further development of London City and amend present planning conditions. No new planning applications have been received and whether to make an application is a matter for the owners. If they do, it will be considered in accordance with planning procedures and laws.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked me about the number of passengers using London City Airport

1039
or the limit in the planning permission. I do not know whether any figure exists as such for passengers. There is a maximum number of movements allowed per year, which is 30,160, and a limit of no more than 120 a day and 40 on Sundays. That is for the particular plane in use at the moment, which is the Dash 7. There would be a different number of movements for a different type of aircraft.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, am I not correct that the planning application originally provided for 1½ million passengers per annum? If I am incorrect about that I apologise, but I thought that was the position and I wondered to what extent passenger development had moved towards that figure.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said, I do not have a figure for the number of passengers allowed for in the planning permission. My own figure is that present capacity would be around 1 million passengers per year, which I cannot as I stand here relate to the number of aircraft movements, but it may be possible to have some information on that.
1040
I am conscious that I have not answered all the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked about air traffic control in the area. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, this is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority and not for the Department of Transport; it is its statutory role. I shall certainly draw the attention of the CAA to the debate which has taken place tonight and it may be that it can write to the noble Lord with the answers to some of his questions. Neither have I been able to answer the noble Lord's question about double-glazing in the immediate area. Again, I shall look into that matter and endeavour to reply.
As noble Lords have said, this is an exciting development and I can assure your Lordships that the Government do believe in the future of London City Airport and welcome it as not only bringing a rejuvenation to that part of docklands but also, in a small way, alleviating some of the capacity problems in the South-East area. I should like to repeat my thanks to my noble friend for having raised the matter this evening.
House adjourned at a quarter before ten o'clock.

  REMAND CELLS: INSPECTION
  REMAND CELLS: INSPECTION
  WAGES COUNCILS
  WAGES COUNCILS
  ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY: PRIVATISATION
  ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY: PRIVATISATION
  FLUIDISED BED COMBUSTION TECHNOLOGY: RESEARCH COSTS
  FLUIDISED BED COMBUSTION TECHNOLOGY: RESEARCH COSTS