Sitting of 4 April 1989

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

    Schools (Opting Out)
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools have voted to opt out to date; and if he will make a statement
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his proposed funding of opted-out schools
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): At least 63 schools have begun the legal procedures for seeking grant-maintained status. So far parents have voted at 51 schools. In 38 they have authorised a formal application, and I have already approved four such applications. My proposals for funding grant-maintained schools were set out in a consultation paper on 10 March.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the confidence shown by the parents of pupils at St. James's Church of England school which has allowed the school to take up a full entry quota for next year? Will he assure the governors of the school that they will receive all the support that they need in view of the mean-mindedness of
    2
    Bolton council which has threatened to withdraw all but the legal minimum of support services, even though the people of Bolton greeted my right hon. Friend's decision to provide grant-aided status with jubilation?
    Mr. Baker: I deplore the absurd and rather threatening statement made some time ago by Bolton's chief education officer that teachers in grant-maintained schools do not have the right experience to serve in LEA schools. Thai is transparent nonsense. With regard to funding, local authorities will retail some legal responsibilities for certain services to pupils in grant-maintained schools, but when governors become responsible for running schools, they will have the money to provide the basic education service and to buy specialist support either from the local education authority or, if the authority is not willing, from other suppliers.
    Mr. Greenway: Bearing in mind the excellent opt principle and its fairness, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will under no circumstances allow grant-maintained schools to be in any way disadvantaged in comparison with local authority schools? Will he take note of what the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said—which contrasts with what his party has said—that Church schools and others should opt out of the local education system?
    Mr. Baker: I assure my hon. Friend that the rules about parity of funding are clearly set out in the memorandum that I have already issued. Like my hon. Friend, I was very interested to see the report produced by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). In it the hon. Gentleman praised the status of grant-maintained schools and advocated that that option should be taken up by Church schools. That is clearly a very significant contribution to the debate from a distinguished member of the Labour party. I only hope that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) will listen to him.
    Mr. Frank Field: Clearly the Secretary of State for Education and Science did not attend a grant-maintained school because if he had, he might have read the pamphlet more ably. In that pamphlet I advocated that opting out

    3
    schools should opt in to a federated Church status. If that happens, does the Secretary of State agree that the Education Reform Act 1988 would be radically changed in a way which might be more on keeping with his views, but less in keeping with those of the Prime Minister?
    Mr. Baker: No. I think that in his pamphlet the hon. Gentleman urged that Church schools of all denominations should take advantage collectively or individually of grant-maintained status. I am glad that he had the courage to say that. I was a little surprised by the reaction of the Member for Leeds, Central when the pamphlet was published. He said:
    "Frank is out of line with party and Church thinking on this."——
    but he added, and this must be very reassuring for the hon. Member for Birkenhead——
    "We are not going to kick him for having other views."
    Mr. George Howarth: Does the Secretary of State agree that 97·4 per cent. of parents at Ruffwood school in my constituency, who voted against opting out, pretty well tumbled what a fatuous and stupid way that would have been to run their school?
    Mr. Baker: The whole purpose of a ballot is that parents have a choice; some say no and some say yes, and more are saying yes than no. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will find it reassuring that more schools in Labour authorities—[Interruption.] I have the figures. Indeed, of the 63 schools which have so far embarked on the statutory procedures, 24 are in Labour-controlled local education authority areas, 22 in Conservative, 16 in hung areas and one in an SLD-controlled area. That disposes of the rumour that it is only in the Tory areas that schools wish to opt out.
    Mr. Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that grant-maintained schools will have an impact out of all proportion to their numbers, because they will do a great deal to improve the quality and standard of state education and will be used as benchmarks against which other schools will be judged?
    Mr. Baker: I am quite sure my hon. Friend is right. This is one of the reasons why we introduced this new type of school, and I am sure that they will provide a standard of excellence and will be beacons. This is, after all, the very thinking behind the pamphlet issued by the hon. Member for Birkenhead.
    Mr. Straw: I, too, have a list, Mr. Speaker—on this occasion supplied by the GMS trust—which shows that of the 49 schools balloted, as of 4 April, only 20 are in Labour-controlled areas and many more in Conservative-controlled areas. [Interruption.] Sorry, 22—two more.
    What is the Secretary of State's view of his senior chief inspector's report "Education Standards 1988–89" which shows that plans to reorganise secondary schools appear to have been slowed by uncertainty over the effect of recent legislation, especially that relating to grant-maintained schools? Does the Secretary of State agree with the chief inspector that opting out is paralysing the sensible planning of school provision, wasting money and is undermining education opportunities for a great many young people?
    Mr. Baker: It will come as no surprise to the House that my figures are more up-to-date and correct than the hon.
    4
    Gentleman's. I do not believe that reorganisation plans are being paralysed. It is interesting that some of the schools which decided to vote no are themselves subject to major reorganisation, amounting virtually to closure, and that they have voted in favour of that rather than go for grant-maintained status, which indicates that the essence of this and what the Labour party does not like about it is that grant-maintained status is all about parental choice, and that is what we are seeing.

    Schools (Financial Management)
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the average cost method of allocating resources to schools under the local financial management provisions of the Education Reform Act.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): My right hon. Friend has received some correspondence from authorities and schools expressing concern about the requirement for schemes of local management to provide for average costs, including average salary costs, to be reflected in the formula for distributing resources between schools. Circular 7/88 allows LEAs to devise formulae which safeguard the position of small schools which might otherwise find it difficult to accommodate actual salary costs. I understand that the majority of authorities are satisfied that this flexibility provides a certain measure of protection.
    Mr. Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in the consultation processes in schools there is a tremendous and almost universal acceptance of the opportunities put forward by local financial management? Will she also agree, however, that there is some concern at the interaction between the provisions of the school pay and conditions document and the average cost per capita methods of funding different schools, which may in some cases lead to differences of £40,000 between similar schools? Will she therefore consider giving the opportunity of flexibility to certain LEAs in order to be able to vire funds between those schools to avoid those kinds of anomalies?
    Mrs. Rumbold: It is true that during the consultative period a large number of authorities agreed that local management of schools will be beneficial. Also, it is misleading at the present time to look simply at one of the cost elements in isolation when considering some of the formulas. It is essential for all authorities to consider the combined effect of all the elements in the formula and not simply the salary costs. On the final question, I do not want to anticipate the statutory approval process but, of course, it may well be possible that there would be some flexibility in individual, exceptional cases, where there are particular difficulties.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Has my hon. Friend noted that a number of Kent schools have been running under local financial management for some time, two of them in Gravesham? Has she further noted that that is immensely popular with the local schools since it allows them to obtain greater value for the money provided and the ability to make cash purchases which has resulted in the quick delivery of books, and at a discount?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I am delighted to hear of those experiences in Gravesham in my hon. Friend's constituency. During a recent visit to another authority a head teacher told me, of his own volition, that he had been very much against the idea of local management schemes, but after three years of operating he was entirely in favour of it because he had found so much to his benefit that he had not expected.
    Mr. Frank Field: The Minister says that local education authorities are happy that they should determine the formula. Are small schools happy with that?
    Mrs. Rumbold: As the hon. Gentleman will know, there is special provision for small schools with fewer than 10 teachers to have their provisions determined by the local education authority within the formula weighted in their favour. Therefore, there is provision within the formula for small schools.
    Mr. Stern:To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he plans to issue further advice to education authorities on the criteria to be used in dividing existing education budgets among the schools under their control for the purposes of local financial management.
    Mrs. Rumbold: Circular 7/88 sets out the framework for local education authority schemes of local management. My right hon. Friend has no plans to issue further guidance. Officials of the Department's LMS unit are in touch with individual local education authorities and are happy to advise on any particular points of concern which may arise during the preparation of a scheme.
    Mr. Stern: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will she encourage local education authorities as much as possible to use all the flexibility that is available within the current guidelines and, where necessary, advise local authorities on an individual basis of the amount of flexibility that it is available to avoid unnecessary and unacceptable results in the funding of individual schools?
    Mrs. Rumbold: Yes. I can reassure my hon. Friend that local authorities have the necessary flexibility to construct a formula for special circumstances—for example to weight resources in favour of individual schools in inner cities, those which serve disadvantaged areas, those which admit a higher than average proportion of pupils from ethnic minorities or those with special educational needs.
    Mr. Spearing: Can the Minister confirm that local financial management includes responsibility for the repair and maintenance of buildings? If that is so, is that not rather arbitrary? Could it not put an unfair burden on some schools? What guarantee can the Minister give that her Department will provide local authorities with sufficient funds to ensure that schools are treated equitably in that matter?
    Mrs. Rumbold: The local financial management schemes will include some money within the formula for general repairs and maintenance. Where such work can be shown to be capital expenditure, it will fall outside delegation within a local financial management scheme and it will be the local authority's responsibility to allocate resources.

    Universities (Salaries)
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on academic salaries in universities.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): My right hon. Friend has received representations from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the Association of University Teachers seeking additional funds for pay increases for university staff. He has also had many letters about salary levels in universities and in criticism of the boycott of examination work by lecturers.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that those academics who are refusing, or threatening to refuse, to mark examination papers are behaving in an unacademic, immoral way which is tantamount to blackmail? Does he also agree that some of them may well be in breach of their contractual obligations to their university, and will he advise pusillanimous principals to take the necessary disciplinary measures against them?
    Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is right. The money offered represents a fair increase in academic pay. The Government have put in extra money and there is no more to come. I hope that all parts of the House join us in condemning any prospect of the rejection of that offer, because that would put students at risk and damage the professional reputation of British university academics.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister recognise that university teachers have a justifiable complaint, given that they received a 0·5 per cent. increase last year and have just been offered 6 per cent. for this year? In view of the great Budget surplus of which the Government are so proud, and given that we cannot allow students to suffer, with the prospect of no examinations in the summer, will the Secretary of State and his Ministers take the initiative by pouring oil on troubled waters and offer to talk about more money in return for the lecturers offering to suspend their action and allow this summer's examinations to take place?
    Mr. Jackson: The House should appreciate the context and the sequence of events. On 1 December 1986 there was an increase of 16·6 per cent., and on 1 March 1988, an increase of 7·4 per cent. That meant a 24 per cent. increase in dons' pay between 1985 and 1988, at a time when the retail price index rose by only 13 per cent. There is now an offer from 1 March 1989 of the equivalent of 6·5 per cent., with a further 1 per cent. due for discretionary payments from October. That is a very reasonable and generous offer that has involved additional Government resources, and it should be accepted.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: My hon. Friend will acknowledge that Nottingham university is not exactly a hotbed of militant unrest. Nevertheless, whatever may be the rights and wrongs of this particular case, and regardless of whose figures are right, does my hon. Friend acknowledge that, particularly in science and managerial disciplines, we cannot offer the salaries that will ensure the standards that we believe are necessary in higher education in the long term?
    Mr. Jackson: Some evidence was provided—it must be said, rather scanty evidence—of recruitment and retention

    7
    difficulties in some areas in the universities. That was one of the reasons that led the Government to advance proposals for extra money. The key to solving the problem lies in increased differentiation in university pay. That element has been included in the offer we have made.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: Does the Minister acknowledge that his letter published in The Independent last Thursday and his advocacy of university teachers moonlighting to make up what he conceded to be a 25 per cent. cut in their relative pay is singularly ill-judged and insulting, and provides incendiary support for the cause of rejecting the ballot offer? Is moonlighting now the policy of the Government throughout public sector higher education, and is it the policy also of the Secretary of State?
    Mr. Jackson: I was attempting to meet the argument that there has been a 25 per cent. cut in dons' pay relative to average earnings. I made the rather elementary point, which I hope the hon. Gentleman understands, that pay is not the same as earnings, and that there is reason to believe that the earnings of academics have increased in the same way as the earnings of other people. It is appropriate for the Government to encourage dons to write books and articles, undertake consultancies, and to assume directorships—all of which involve extra earnings.

    Assessment Tests
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress being made towards implementing assessment tests for school pupils at seven, 11 and 14 years of age.
    Mrs. Rumbold: The first step towards implementing the Education Reform Act 1988 is to establish programmes of study——
    Mr. Skinner: Mr. Speaker, have you read The Observer——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That matter has nothing to do with Education Questions.
    Mrs. Rumbold: The first step towards implementing the Education Reform Act 1988 is to establish programmes of study for each of the core and foundation subjects. That process is well under way and programmes of study will be introduced for mathematics and science for seven and 11-year-olds this autumn. Children will be assessed in these subjects on a trial basis in 1991, and from 1992 on a reported basis. Assessment arrangements in other subjects and for those and other key ages will be phased in over succeeding years.
    Mr. Bennett: In view of the fact that teachers have always tested children, does my hon. Friend share my astonishment, and that of parents, that some teachers and some teachers' unions oppose those tests? Does she agree that assessment tests will provide a national standard benchmark by which schools and teachers can be judged, which will also help parents to judge the progress of their children and how they can best be helped?
    Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The importance of introducing assessment together with the national curriculum is that it will enable teachers, parents and children to monitor the children's programmes of study within the national curriculum. It is absolutely
    8
    essential that assessment is introduced. I am surprised to learn that some teachers do not agree with this particular policy since I understand that for many years it has been the practice of the majority of teachers to assess the children in their classes on a monthly basis.
    Mr. Grocott: Given the Minister's enthusiasm for this endless formalised testing, despite all evidence to the contrary, will she tell us at what point she will have an assessment of the effectiveness of these tests? Will she give a commitment that if they are discovered to be valueless she will scrap the system?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I think it very unlikely that assessment will prove valueless since it is a part of the process of teaching which has been going on in schools throughout the country, as we have been assured endlessly by teachers. So the assessment process that we are introducing, following the introduction of the programmes of study with the national curriculum, will be useful not only to the teachers but to the parents. It seems very unlikely that there will be any occasion for parents to wish that assessment be discontinued.
    Mr. Favell: At the moment it is virtually impossible to dismiss an incompetent teacher. What is to be done about teachers whose pupils consistently fail their assessment tests?
    Mrs. Rumbold: It is hoped very much that we shall ask for teachers themselves to go through a form of assessment. The introduction of teacher appraisal will help those who have difficulty to reassess themselves and to undertake in-service training to improve their performance with pupils. It is crucial that our children are given the best possible teaching and that the teachers themselves produce the results, through assessment and testing, to which pupils and parents are entitled.
    Ms. Armstong: Will the Minister take the opportunity to tell the House if age-related testing is to be used as part of the process of ensuring that all children reach their full potential or if, as many now fear, it is to be used as a totally inadequate way of pitting school against school and child against child? Will she further make it clear that crude test scores will not be published for seven-year-old children because such scores would be both misleading and potentially damaging to children's progress?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I find it very sad that the hon. Lady should repeat that kind of misinformation to the general public. The whole purpose of testing and assessment of children is to ensure that all children, throughout their school years, can achieve their potential. This is what the whole of the national curriculum is designed to do. We are putting the programmes of study first and the assessment of those programmes afterwards to discover what children have in the way of understanding and knowledge.

    Primary Schools (Staffordshire)
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much was spent per pupil for primary schools in Staffordshire in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the comparable figure in 1978–79, at constant prices.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John Butcher): In cash terms,

    9
    Staffordshire spent £370 per primary pupil in 1978–79 and £980 per primary pupil in 1987–88. At 1987–88 prices those figures are £755 and £980 respectively.
    Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that these figures show an impressive increase in expenditure per pupil in primary schools in Staffordshire since the present Government came to power? Will he further agree that they provide no evidence at all of alleged cuts in education and staffing by the Government?
    Mr. Butcher: I fail to understand how the word "cut" can be used accurately in relation to education budgets. Nationally there has been a 35 per cent. increase in real terms in expenditure per pupil and a not too dissimilar increase in Staffordshire. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: those of us who wish to see improvements in standards of education have put our money where our mouths are and have adequately funded that improvement.

    Primary School Teachers
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of primary school teachers' working time has been assigned as non-contact time in each of the last five years.
    Mr. Butcher: The 1987 primary school staffing survey showed that there were 22·5 hours of taught lessons in the average pupil's week in maintained primary schools in England. Within that total, teachers had an average of two hours' non-contact time.
    Mr. Taylor: The Minister will be aware that the same unpublished staffing survey, which is lodged in the House of Commons Library, makes it clear that fewer than half of all primary school teachers have any non-contact time. In my own area, virtually no teachers have non-contact time. A typical school in Cornwall has been described as three teachers and three classes. What will the Minister do to ensure that resources are provided to give teachers the necessary preparation time, particularly in view of the demands placed on them in the drawing up of preparations for the national curriculum?
    Mr. Butcher: Non-contact time within the pupil week is not the whole story. Considerably more non-teaching time is available within the 1,265 hours a year that teachers are required to work, and that can be used to prepare for the national curriculum. Of the 195 days a year on which a teacher is required to work, five may be used for in-service training, and schools may close for two days this year specifically to prepare for the introduction of the curriculum.
    I know that many representations are being made on the need for further in-service training, but any dispassionate examination of the figures will show that the teaching profession in this country is very well provided for in training.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend examine marking periods in the school week, as distinct from non-contact time as set out in the Education Reform Act? Will he do all that he can to ensure that periods are set aside for marking?
    Mr. Butcher: As I said earlier, considerable discretionary allocation of time is available to headmasters. Some
    10
    800 of the 1,265 hours are direct teaching time. I should have thought that the activity to which my hon. Friend refers could be catered for within a well-managed school, provided that headteachers were prepared to use their management discretion appropriately. That, indeed, was one of the conclusions reached in the recent Her Majesty's inspectorate report.
    Mr. Flannery: The shortage of teachers is now so serious that the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts is examining it very carefully. Has not that shortage, which the Government have created by attacking teachers relentlessly—an attack led from the top on the Front Bench—resulted in the virtual disappearance of non-class-contact time in primary schools? Not only that, but teachers in the primary sector are now staying behind regularly, for an hour or two every day, because of the pressures imposed upon them. When will the Government realise that to bring back teachers who have left the profession they must increase wages and give teachers back their negotiating rights?
    Mr. Butcher: The position described by the hon. Gentleman is simply not reflected in the facts. Primary class contact rates have fallen from 91 per cent. in 1984 to 89 per cent. in 1988. That means that, on average, teachers are spending less time in front of classes.
    The question of teacher shortages is complex. We understand that there are geographical and, indeed, subject difficulties, and I hope that some of the action plans introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be supported by the hon. Gentleman, as they are proving effective.

    Pupil-Teacher Ratio
    Mr. Patnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the change in the ratio of pupil-teacher numbers over the last five years for which figures are available.
    Mr. Butcher: The overall pupil-teacher ratio in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools has improved from 17·9 in January 1984 to 17 in January 1988. There are now more teachers relative to pupils than ever before.
    Mr. Patnick: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Would he care to comment on the initial teacher training recruitment, which is vital if the trend established under the present Government is to continue?
    Mr. Butcher: Yes, I should like to report to the House on initial teacher training, but before I do so let me give the House some new information. We have received a massive response to our recent advertising campaign, and more than 8,000 people have expressed an interest in teaching as a career. Surely that gives the lie to the assertion that those who wish to enter the teaching profession are being deterred by alleged demoralisation in the profession.
    Recruitment to ITT reached a record in 1988; it was up by 5 per cent. on recruitment in 1987. Primary recruitment was up by 12 per cent. Secondary recruitment was down, but by only 250 students; the underlying trend is still upward.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Of the 8,000 people to whom the Minister referred, how many were interested in

    11
    teaching science, maths, combined technology and similar subjects? Does he have evidence to show that the Government's recruitment drive is solving the shortage of teachers in those subjects?
    Mr. Butcher: I do not have a breakdown of subjects of interest referenced by those 8,000 responses. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures from the Universities Council for the Education of Teachers he will find that there was a higher placement of teachers of maths and science than was the case for teaching in the generality. The fact is that many people are looking for a job in the profession. There are geographical difficulties and differences in standards of living in different regions, and we are aware of them, but I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would care to talk to his ex-colleagues in the teachers' unions about, for example, regional pay.

    Teacher Recruitment
    Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to provide additional resources for teacher recruitment.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: My Department's action programme includes bursaries, in-service training, the teaching as a career unit and new publicity, which has amounted to over £51 million in the last three years. That programme will continue and will be extended.
    Mr. Wallace: Is the Secretary of State willing to accept that there are still acute shortages in subjects such as maths and physics and that in the last two years his bursary scheme has reached target only once in one subject? Does that not represent a failure? Is it not a fact that far more resources are required if people are to be brought into teaching, not least in subjects such as maths and physics, in which there exist important and serious shortages?
    Mr. Baker: Last year saw record figures for the intake of trainees into initial teacher training. The number of applications for the autumn of this year show an increase of 10 per cent. over the number last year. I accept, however, that there are difficulties in the subjects to which the hon. Gentleman referred—in maths, physics, technology and chemistry—and that is why I have extended the bursary scheme to chemistry trainee teachers.
    Mr. Baldry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the deciding factor in whether a sufficient number of people come forward is the way in which the profession portrays itself? To that end, does he agree that every teacher should take cognisance of the advice given by June Fisher, president of the National Union of Teachers, that teachers should stop whingeing and moaning and should take a pride in making a success of the Government's education reforms?
    Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend is right. Far too many people at the teacher conferences last week were talking down their profession. We want to extend the opportunities for qualified people to become teachers. That is why we are putting forward our proposal for licensed teachers, a proposal which is being widely welcomed by many Labour local education authorities. It is absolutely absurd to believe that people who are
    12
    qualified—who have had two years in higher education and experience in business—should not come into the teaching profession.
    Mr. Fatchett: When will the Secretary of State recognise that we are now faced with acute teacher shortages in our schools? When will he also recognise that morale is at an all-time low in the teaching profession? How does he think he will be able to attract more people into the profession when this year he has imposed a cut in real living standards on teachers? When will he stop kicking teachers around?
    Mr. Baker: In the recently completed advertising campaign we received over 8,000 applications from people seeking to be teachers. The numbers going to initial teacher training later this year are up by nearly 10 per cent. compared with last year. As for attracting people into the profession, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome our proposal for licensed teachers, because many Labour education authorities are welcoming them.

    City Technology Colleges
    Mr. Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many parents have written to him objecting to the establishment of a city technology college.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: Our records show that only 15 letters of objection have been received in nearly two and a half years to city technology colleges. Parents see the CTC programme as a great opportunity for their children. There have been over 1,200 applications for 180 places available this year at Kingshurst, the first CTC. That is what parents think of CTCs.
    Mr. Squire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that excellent answer give the lie to the comments that we sometimes hear from Labour Members to the effect that parents and children do not want CTCs? Will my right hon. Friend particularly confirm that the interest is as high, if not higher, in areas where poorer standards of education and an absence of choice have been a legacy from the Labour party?
    Mr. Baker: We are receiving applications from many areas to have CTCs—either new colleges or schools converted to CTCs. This is proving to be a very popular policy, because people recognise that these schools provide a special type of education. We want them to become beacons of excellence, copied by others. Of course, that is now happening in the Birmingham area.
    Mr. Madden: If the Secretary of State is so confident that parents want CTCs, why is he so terrified to allow parents in Bradford a ballot to decide whether £8 million of their money should be spent on setting up a CTC, at a time when the vast majority of them see the expenditure of that amount of money as being wholly unnecessary, very divisive, and damaging to the existing schools in the city?
    Mr. Baker: That is simply not true. It has been possible to establish a CTC in Bradford—a new one, to be built next year—only because the Conservatives now control Bradford city council. The hon. Gentleman will find that, once that school is established and has started to recruit,

    13
    it will be one of the most popular in Bradford, to which the children of many of his constituents will want to go. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to listen to Education Questions.
    Mr. Holt: My right hon. Friend will know that the new Macmillan CTC in Teesside has been oversubscribed by teachers many times over, and that many of the parents of the 40 to 60 children who applied to join but have not been found places this year will want a new college in addition to the one that we already have.
    Mr. Baker: Once again, I am quite sure that that school will be very popular. Many teachers want to teach in it, and many parents want to send their children to it. I am quite sure that after it has been established for a few years its popularity will grow even further.
    Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State must be aware that the parents of children at the Sylvan school in Croydon, which is the subject of a proposal to turn it into a CTC, have voted overwhelmingly to keep it as a county school. Why is the Secretary of State refusing to accept the outcome of that parents' ballot?
    Mr. Baker: I understand that the Croydon local education authority voted only last night to publish statutory notices to close the school. That triggers a formal process, and the application will come to me. Of course, I will take into account any objections to the proposal.

    School Closures
    Mr. Rooker: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science to what extent he takes into account parental wishes when considering a school closure.
    Mr. Butcher: In considering statutory proposals for school reorganisations, my right hon. Friend takes full account of all representations made by parents, both for and against the proposals.
    Mr. Rooker: If the majority of people who have children at Sylvan high school in Croydon are so determined that the school should not be closed, as they have constantly made clear to all four Members of Parliament for Croydon, including you, Mr. Speaker, will the Government accept the wishes of the parents?
    Mr. Butcher: The section 12 proposal has now been issued, and we will look at it—as we look at all section 12 proposals—on its merits, separate from the consideration of the CTC.
    Mr. Latham: When my hon. Friend comes to consider the section 12 notice to close Long Field high school in my constituency, which is full and, indeed, is extremely popular, will he confirm that he will consider at the same time the 96·4 per cent. parents' vote to go for grant-maintained status?
    Mr. Butcher: Of course, we look at the merits of a particular school proposed for closure. Indeed, I take very seriously representations from parents who are concerned to maintain the quality of an existing, well-managed school with a good ethos. Matters of that sort will be taken into account.

    City Technology Colleges
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what measures are being taken to find sponsors for city technology colleges.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: We have worked hard to bring the CTC programme to the attention of industry and commerce, and there has been a magnificent response to its aims of raising standards, increasing choice, and giving the private sector a say in how schools are run. Thirty-four million pounds—and unprecedented sum—has already been pledged, and much more will follow.
    Mr. Hughes: Given that there is some reported indifference among big business to sponsorship of CTCs, what does the Secretary of State consider will be the effect of Tory-controlled Bexley deciding not to go ahead with one, and of the parents in Tory-controlled Croydon voting by 480 to 14 not to go ahead with a CTC? If parents say not to CTC, will the money from the sponsor be made available to the school, via the local education authority?
    Mr. Baker: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would make his views on CTCs known, because in the past he has attacked them. However, I gather that, as a member of the governing body of Bacon's school, he has voted for the proposals for that school to become a CTC to go out to consultation. He really should get off the fence.

    Council for Industry and Higher Education
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met the chairman of the Council for Industry and Higher Education; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Jackson: My right hon. Friend meets the chairman of the Council for Industry and Higher Education periodically, both formally and informally.
    Mr. Taylor: Will my hon. Friend note the welcome that we give to the council and its work and our acknowledgement of the importance of links between education and industry? Will he encourage the idea of regional councils and will he note in particular that the university of Surrey is doing splendid work with local industry and is pioneering further development?
    Mr. Jackson: One of the most encouraging features of the higher education scene is the growth of contact between the world of academe in the universities and the polytechnics and industry. The Council for Industry and Higher Education is one of the most notable manifestations of that. We very much welcome it and all proposals for its further development.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ms. Mowlam: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 April.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Ms. Mowlam: As it is the Government's view that doctors who oppose the Health Service plans are simply feeling for their wallets, what motive does the Prime Minister use to explain the nurses' opposition?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that the nurses who have taken part in the five-hospital experiment for the financial initiative will give evidence that it has worked extremely well and has given far more responsibility to both doctors and nurses. Many other reforms in the Health Service have been fought most bitterly by the medical profession. The initial introduction of the National Health Service in 1948 was fought most bitterly by the medical profession, but it was welcomed later.
    Mr. Curry: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Curry: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her successful visit to southern Africa, particularly her decision to visit Namibia to support the United Nations plan to bring that territory to independence. Will she therefore condemn the incursion from Angola by SWAPO guerrillas into that territory, which is putting at jeopardy the whole of the painfully acquired process?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. The secretary general's report to the United Nations and the Security Council specifically confirms that there has been a large-scale incursion from Angola into Namibia by armed SWAPO personnel. It is a most serious challenge to the authority of the United Nations and the internationally agreed arrangements for Namibia's independence, and I certainly condemn it. There is no provision in the United Nations plan for SWAPO to have bases in Namibia. SWAPO committed itself to the Geneva accord under which it is required to stay north of the 16th parallel in Angola. It is the breach by SWAPO which has led to the most regrettable fighting and loss of life. I emphasise that the South African units involved are acting with the authority of the United Nations. It is now important that the authority of the United Nations—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. These are very important matters.
    The Prime Minister: It is important that the authority of the United Nations should be upheld and the arrangements implemented in full.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Is the Prime Minister aware that many of us believe that the lengthy reply that she has just given should have been in the form of a statement which the House could have examined at greater length? Is she completely confident that the description of events that she has given us, which is being disputed by several newspapers, is absolutely accurate?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman can read for himself the report of the secretary general to the United Nations Security Council, which specifically confirmed that there has been a large-scale incursion from Angola into Namibia; he can obtain for himself a copy of the agreements to which the several member states were signatories; he can also obtain for himself a copy of the Geneva protocols which were specifically agreed to by SWAPO. All those are public knowledge, and the hon. Gentleman can get them from the Library at any time.
    Mr. David Porter: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Porter: As many East Anglian people are worried that Suffolk and Norfolk may miss out on the benefits of 1992 and the Channel tunnel, can my right hon. Friend reassure East Anglians on the coast that road and rail investment will not be left behind, and that the persistent long-term unemployment there will give way to the prosperity which is now being enjoyed by most other parts of the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: We recognise that East Anglia is a very important area of economic growth, and our substantial and continuing programme of road improvements includes 29 schemes, worth about £220 million, in East Anglia. We have also recently approved investment in electrification from Cambridge to King's Lynn and in new rolling stock to relieve overcrowding. I am pleased to see that East Anglia now has the lowest rate of unemployment of all the regions.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister recall that when she started raising interest rates last year, inflation was just over 4 per cent.? It is now just under 8 per cent. What has gone wrong?
    The Prime Minister: The raising of interest rates will gradually work to choke inflation down. I am the first to say that what we regard as one of our less good performances was regarded by Labour as its best.
    Mr. Kinnock: On present trends, what level of interest rate will have to be charged in order to reach the right hon. Lady's objective of zero inflation?
    The Prime Minister: Those who wish for specific answers on interest rates can only be seeking to help the speculators.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Taylor: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will join all Conservative Members in wishing NATO a happy 40th birthday. Will she note that we encourage her to hold further discussions with President Gorbachev during his visit about the need for further and deep cuts in conventional forces and chemical weapons on the Soviet side? Will she also note that a recent opinion poll has shown widespread support for steadfast British defence policies, and that the British Government do not need to go cap in hand to Moscow to find a defence policy?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I think that most British people agree, that NATO has kept the peace successfully for 40 years. It is needed as much in the future as it was in the past. It is vital that we keep in step with America and Canada on NATO.
    I agree that we must modernise our forces, including nuclear forces. NATO has already agreed that they must be modernised, on the basis that obsolete weapons do not deter. What is at issue is the precise timing of that

    17
    modernisation. I shall discuss that with Mr. Gorbavchev. The Russians have already modernised their short-range nuclear weapons.
    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that 1 gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Vaz: The Prime Minister will recall encouraging millions of people throughout the country to buy their own council homes. Will she now put the Government's money where her mouth is or, rather, was, and provide financial assistance to constituents of mine and other hon. Members who have taken her at her word, purchased their council houses and found them to be seriously defective? Will she support people such as my constituents on the Morton estate, or will she abandon them as she has abandoned millions of people who have been deceived by the Government's policies?
    The Prime Minister: Well over 1 million people have purchased their council homes at a very substantial discount and I hope that more will take advantage of that opportunity. It is an opportunity which the Labour party fought against and which was provided by this Government.
    Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to congratulate the designers, craftsmen and managers of Rolls-Royce, who have just won yet another huge order for aero-engines in the teeth of fierce world competition, this time for 20 Cathay Pacific Airbuses? Does this not show that British high technology products can and do sell on world markets?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I warmly congratulate Rolls-Royce on this excellent £1 billion order for engines for the Airbus and, of course, the order will also help British Aerospace. It is very good news and shows that British industry at its best can compete with the best in the world.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Prime Minister have a word today with the Secretary of State for Transport about the disgraceful decision to hold up yet again the report on the Chinook disaster, apparently at the behest of the Boeing company? Does she accept that we must have absolute faith in the integrity of official reports into accidents, for the safety of the thousands of people who use helicopters in the North sea? Will she ask the Secretary of State to make a statement to the effect that he will publish that report in full without one comma or jot changed, in order to assure us that we have that integrity?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is following the procedures laid
    18
    down by Parliament in the Civil Aviation (Investigation of Accidents) Regulations 1983. Subject to any legal constraints, I expect the air accidents investigation branch report and the report of the review board to be published very shortly. The hon. Gentleman will know that publication of the reports before the contentions of the Boeing company are adequately considered would be against the regulations and could invite a conclusion that the publication might be regarded as prejudging the question of a rehearing. My right hon. Friend is following precisely the law as laid down by the House.
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Riddick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the KGB defector Major Levchenko, revealed that the spying activities of the KGB reached their peak during the years of detente in the 1970s? Can she confirm that KGB espionage activities—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Give him a chance.
    Mr. Riddick: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that KGB espionage activities are increasing now and have increased since President Gorbachev came to power and, indeed, since glasnost was introduced? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It does not help the hon. Member.
    Mr. Riddick: Is this not a clear demonstration that, despite Mr. Gorbachev's slick PR image, the West cannot afford to lower its guard?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, we believe that defence matters do not depend on good intentions but on a sure and strong defence. We find no reduction the world over in the activities of the KGB.
    Mr. Wareing: During the last football season there were 33 arrests associated with matches at Liverpool, 24 arrests at Everton and 38 at Manchester United. At Hampden Park, Glasgow, there were 152 arrests and at Ibrox Park, the home of Glasgow Rangers, there were 407 arrests. Yet it is the supporters of English clubs—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman make his question brief?
    Mr. Wareing: It is the supporters of English clubs who are to be penalised by the identity card system. [Interruption.] Will the Prime Minister tell us where the sense is in that?
    The Prime Minister: I heard the statistics given by the hon. Gentleman, but the rest of his question was drowned. Last year in England and Wales as a whole there were about 6,000 arrests and it was, therefore, important for us to take action to bring in membership cards. We have done that.

House of Fraser
Mr. Speaker: Before calling upon the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) to ask a private notice question relating to the publication of the inspectors' report on the House of Fraser, I wish to make it clear that quotations from the text of the report would contravene our sub judice rules. [Interruption.] Order. An appeal on this matter is to be heard in the House of Lords on 10 April. I am aware that the court has varied an injunction so that our proceedings may be reported, but that does not relieve us of the obligation to respect our own rules, and the Chair will not allow the use of alleged texts of the report while questions on its publication remain sub judice.
3.32 pm
Mr. Bryan Gould(by private notice): To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the publication of the DTI inspectors' report into the affairs of the House of Fraser.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Newton): Inspectors were appointed to investigate the affairs of House of Fraser Holdings plc in April 1987. They reported to my right hon. and noble Friend on 23 July 1988. Their findings disclosed evidence of wrongdoing such that my right hon. and noble Friend felt it right to refer the report to the serious fraud office and the Director of Public Prosecutions. The prosecution authorities' inquiries are well advanced, and are proceeding as swiftly as possible under the superintendence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.
Our consistent view has been that publication of the report before those inquiries were completed would interfere with the principle that all citizens of this country are entitled to a fair trial of any criminal charges that may arise from it, and would prejudice the inquiries themselves. The Court of Appeal has unanimously agreed that it was reasonable for my right hon. and noble Friend to decide not to publish the report for the time being. The court's judgment is, however, the subject of a further appeal by Lonrho, which will be heard by the House of Lords next Monday.
In the meantime, as the House is aware, Lonrho is understood to have come into possession of a copy of the report on about 23 March, and The Observer newspaper, owned by Lonrho, published substantial extracts from it in a special edition on 30 March, coinciding with Lonrho's annual general meeting. Both Lonrho and The Observer are fully aware that only my right hon. and noble Friend has the lawful authority to publish the report; that Lonrho's copy was improperly given to it and improperly used by it; and that use by Lonrho and The Observer would amount to a grave breach of confidence and of Crown copyright and might prejudice next week's legal proceedings in the House of Lords.
For all these reasons, my right hon. and noble Friend sought and obtained an injunction on 30 March restraining The Observer and Lonrho from any further publication of the special edition. He is also seeking an order for the return of the remaining copies of the report, and urgent and thorough inquiries are being made to seek to establish how the report came into Lonhro's possession.
My right hon. and noble Friend has made it abundantly clear that the report will be published at the earliest
20
possible moment consistent with the even-handed administration of justice. The first principle in this matter must be to safeguard the proper investigation of possible criminal charges and the fair conduct of any trial should such charges be brought. I cannot believe that anyone in this House would wish to undermine that principle, or encourage others to do so.
Mr. Gould: What conceivable purpose can now be served by a continued refusal to publish the report? Is it not clear that the report has already been substantially published, that its contents are known to all those involved and affected, and that, rather than allow further publication to take place piecemeal and by drip-feed, with only the public kept in the dark, it would be better to come clean now? Is it not also clear that the Government's excuses simply do not stand up? How do they square with the admission by counsel for the Attorney-General that publication would not prejudice criminal investigations? If there were truly any substance in the argument that a fair trial would be prejudiced, bearing in mind the fact that any such trial may be years away, why did that not occur to the High Court when it considered the question? Has the Secretary of State himself not prejudiced the issue already by his admission on the radio this morning that the report discloses serious wrongdoing?
Is not the real reason an attempt to hide from the public the fact that the investigation of important takeover bids was in the hands of officials and Ministers who were incompetent and whose slap-happy attitude was no match for those who were determined to lie to them? If the inspectors' conclusion is that that sort of muddle must not be allowed to occur again, how can it be avoided without the benefit of the report and its recommendations? What confidence can we have in a Government who, instead of making amends for spectacular incompetence by coming clean, prefer to compound their errors by further incompetence and an all-too-typical recourse to cover-up?
Mr. Newton: If there were any wish to cover up, my right hon. and noble Friend would not have referred the report to the serious fraud office within a matter of days of having received it. When the hon. Gentleman suggests that there is no question of prejudicing a fair trial because the High Court made a finding in that respect, it seems to me to call into question the whole basis of the way in which we administer justice, in that three judges in the Court of Appeal subsequently found differently. That is the position at the moment.
As to the issue of serious wrongdoing, it is absolutely clear that, if there had not been evidence of wrongdoing in the report, it would not have been necessary or right to refer it to the Serious Fraud Office. Lastly, the hon. Gentleman asked me what purpose was to be served in view of what has happened. I will tell him what purpose is to be served. It is to seek to protect the fair administration of justice and the rule of law in this country. The Government cannot be absolved from that, nor should the House wish to be absolved from that, by the irresponsible behaviour of those who published the report in the way that they did.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the prior publication of evidence, for no better reason than to sell a newspaper or to pursue a personal vendetta, should never be a substitute for the proper prosecution of persons who are alleged to have

21
committed criminal offences? Is it not disgraceful how often Opposition Members side with those arrogant portions of the media who seek to place themselves above the law of the land?
Mr. Newton: I very much agree with the general tenor of my hon. and learned Friend's remarks. I must say fairly and squarely to the Opposition Front Bench that I do not believe that they would wish to prejudice the administration of justice. I hope that they will consider carefully the extent to which they may do so.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to explain to me why, if the trial or potential trial of the A1-Fayeds could be prejudiced by the publication of the report, the same argument was not used in the case of the Guinness scandal or in the case of Mr. Ryan?
Mr. Newton: The issues arising from such a report must be considered in the context of the circumstances of each report, and they have been so considered. The issue of prejudice does not relate merely to proceedings on criminal charges should they be brought, but also to the hampering of current inquiries. Only last week there were signs that the publication of the report might make it impossible for inquiries to continue.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, under section 437 of the Companies Act 1985 the Secretary of State has an unfettered discretion to publish the report? If that is the case, does my right hon. Friend believe that it was wise for the noble Lord, Lord Young, to rely yesterday in the House of Lords on the statement that the prosecuting authorities would have to stop their inquiries if the report was published, when counsel for the Attorney-General said on the record in the Court of Appeal hearing that it was not true that prosecutions would have to be stopped as a result of publicity? Are we not in some confusion and in danger of entering into a second "Carry On, Spycatcher" saga?
Mr. Newton: The statement made by my right hon. and noble Friend in the House of Lords yesterday about the position of the prosecuting authorities was based on the latest statements which they had made to him and to the Department about what they thought would be the likely outcome of publication. I do not think that my right hon. and noble Friend can or should be absolved from taking that into account as a very important factor in exercising the discretion referred to by my hon. Friend.
Mr. Stuart Bell: Will the Chancellor of the Duchy not accept that there is a discrepancy between what he is telling the House today and what the noble Lord, Lord Young, told the House yesterday? The noble Lord made no reference to the prejudice to inquiries connected with criminal investigations; he simply said that there could not be a proper jury trial if the report was published. Is the Chancellor of the Duchy accountable to the House or to the Director of Public Prosecutions? Is the Chancellor telling the House that the report will not be published while criminal proceedings are pending, if the proceedings begin and if there are appeals? Is he telling the House that there is no prospect of forming a jury from all our citizens of jury age and status to hear the evidence in this case who have not read the report on the Fayeds' case?
Mr. Newton: I am saying to the House that it is not my right hon. and noble Friend's view that the report should be published in circumstances in which it could hamper inquiries, prevent inquiries being pursued or prejudice a fair trial following the outcome of those inquiries. That remains the position. With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I am afraid that he simply has not studied the statement made in the other place yesterday. My right hon. and noble Friend referred to the danger of inquiries being hampered and to the risk, at worst, that they might be brought to a halt by publication.
Mr. Richard Page: While one has to admire the determination of Mr. Rowland, does my right hon. Friend agree that as the noble Lord, Lord Young, has referred the matter to the serious fraud office, there is no intention of covering things up or putting them under the carpet? Does he also agree that to give in to the pressure to publish would set a precedent which others would follow when the Government's time scale does not suit their purpose?
Mr. Newton: Yes, I do, and I believe that that is the real issue which the House should address.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: Is it not ironic that a company which was once branded as the "unacceptable face of capitalism" has now, through its immense power and wealth, been able to further confirm what many people now regard to be the unacceptable face of the Government—a combination of shabby secrecy and downright inadequacy where the rigours of the marketplace are concerned? Far from hiding behind all the rhetoric about justice, is it not the case that, were it not for the fact that Lonrho could devote so many millions of pounds and call on its considerable influence and power in this country, many of the details would not have emerged in the first place? Where does individual justice in this country stand in that context?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is simply not right to suggest that the details in this report will not at some stage emerge. The only issue is at what stage it is appropriate to publish a report in a way which is consistent with the basic principle of the fair administration of justice. If the hon. Gentleman does not adhere to that, I do not know what he is doing here.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister make it abundantly clear whether it is the intention of the Government to publish this report after the serious fraud office inquiries, which may be a few weeks, or the determination of any possible trials and appeals, which may be four or five years? Will the Minister also say, in view of the magnitude of the lies and deception referred to in the report, how he can possibly justify not referring this again to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission which was alone in having the right to recommend this investment? Finally, does he not think the points he makes about a fair trial undermine the very fair points the Government made, with the full support of this House, to Belgium and Eire, in exactly the contrary directions about Father Ryan?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. and noble Friend made a statement at the time that he decided not to refer the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and gave indications of why that

23
would not be appropriate. He also indicated, though, that it might be appropriate in due course for other steps to be taken in the light of the inspectors' report.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: How does the Minister respond to the statement of Lord Justice Dillon that there is a public interest in knowing that the principal shareholders of the House of Fraser are fraudulent rogues, and a public interest in knowing how Ministers came to be deceived in 1985? Does the Minister intend to invite the Governor of the Bank of England to censure Kleinwort Benson for negligence, to invite the Law Society to censure Herbert Smith for incompetence, to invite Ministers to censure civil servants for naivety and to invite the Prime Minister to censure Ministers for negligence, incompetence and naivety?
Mr. Newton: The basic public interest in this matter is in the proper investigation of any offences such as the hon. Gentleman assumed had taken place, for proper decisions to be taken about whether criminal charges should be brought, and the proper hearing of those criminal charges should they be brought. That is what the Government are seeking to bring about.
Mr. Ian Gow: Since this exceptionally well-researched and detailed report has been in the possession of the police and the Attorney-General for more than seven months, when may we expect a decision to be taken on whether or not there is to be a prosecution?
Mr. Newton: I cannot be absolutely sure about that. The inquiries are being undertaken jointly by the serious fraud office and the Director of Public Prosecutions, with the help of the Metropolitan police. It is well known that investigations of this kind can take a great amount of time. I am encouraged, however, by the evidence that already exists that the establishment of the serious fraud office has significantly speeded these things up by comparison with what would have happened in earlier periods.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is a private notice question and we have a busy day ahead of us, with a Bill under a guillotine; I will therefore allow two more questions from either side.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is it not true that in 1976 Tiny Rowland and Lonrho went begging to the Department of Trade and Industry asking that the report on sanctions-busting and bribery in the case of Lonrho be not published? Why is it that the Lonrho broadsheet has refused to publish that particular information at this stage? Secondly, what business was it
24
of the DTI inspectors to examine the family background of the A1-Fayeds? Surely their terms of reference only related to whether they had the money to purchase the store. Is it not true that, despite all the discussion in the Lonrho broadsheet, Mr. Tiny Rowland and Mr. Donald Trelford have not produced one shred of evidence to date that the money to buy the House of Fraser was not the property of the A1-Fayeds alone? They have not produced that evidence. Indeed the report that was published equally states that the inspectors were unable to establish what the facts were. Does the Minister agree that that is the case?
Mr. Newton: The first half of the hon. Gentleman's question should be addressed to Lonrho rather than to a Minister at the Dispatch Box. The rest of the hon. Gentleman's question—I understand why—clearly seeks to draw me into commenting on what the hon. Gentleman says are the contents of the report. He will understand that, for reasons inherent in my statement, I am not prepared to be drawn into such comments.
Sir Anthony Grant: Is not the disturbing aspect of the affair not so much the unsavoury shenanigans about the ownership of a shop as the fact that it is yet another dismal example of dishonesty or gross negligence by the public servant who leaked the report? Does my right hon. Friend have the smallest hope that his inquiries will lead to the culprit?
Mr. Newton: The appropriate inquiries are well in train. I am afraid that I am not prepared to speculate about the timing or nature of the outcome.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: The Chancellor talks about prejudice, but does he agree that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry prejudiced the case by saying that the report contained evidence of wrongdoing? Will he stop hiding behind a smokescreen, publish and be damned, whatever may be the consequences for former Ministers or officials?
Mr. Newton: No, I do not for a moment accept that. As I said earlier, if it were not plain that the findings of the report show possible wrongdoing there would have been no need to refer it to the serious fraud office and the DPP in the first place. That is clear.
Mr. James Arbuthnot: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the view of many, including myself, who read last week's special edition of The Observer is that it showed a surprising lack of objectiveness? Does he agree that, even on The Observer's own account, there was nothing in the report for the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, but there may have been something in it for the serious fraud office, and that is the department which is now considering it?
Mr. Newton: Yes, my hon. Friend makes a fair point.

Helicopter Crash (Report)
3.52 pm
Mr. Frank Doran: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific, urgent and important matter, namely,
"the statement made by the Secretary of State for Transport or his Department yesterday that he intends to delay, at the request of the Boeing company, the publication of the report of the inquiry into the Chinook helicopter disaster".
In that disaster, 45 men were killed. It was the worst civil air disaster involving a helicopter and the delay in the publication of that report has caused extreme concern, particularly to those of my constituents with relatives who were involved in the disaster.
There has been no explanation for the delay in the publication of the report except the fact that Boeing has made its request because it appears to feel that it prejudices certain legal proceedings that are under way. I find that difficult to accept, for a number of reasons.
First, the majority of the facts in the case which were the subject of the investigation were canvassed in the Aberdeenshire court on the hearing of the fatal accident inquiry into the disaster in 1987. Secondly, the delay in publication prejudices the implementation of the report's findings. Some 30,000 men work in the North sea and travel to work by helicopter. If there are lessons to be learned, we want the report to be published so that those lessons can be implemented immediately.
Considerable anguish has been caused to relatives. I have spoken to one of those relatives, a constituent of mine, who lost her husband in the disaster. She is involved in legal action, both in this country and in the United States, against Boeing—together with all the other relatives who lost a loved one in the disaster. Those legal proceedings have caused considerable trauma. Part of the reason for the increase in that trauma is the failure to publish the report.
The publication date of 5 April has been known for many months, and legal proceedings have been further delayed as a result of the delay in the report's publication, causing considerable anguish. When I spoke to that lady this morning, she found it very difficult to believe that the only reason for non-publication is pressure from a multinational company. We have heard already today
26
about the suppression of reports and of the concern that that causes to the House and to the country at large. This appears to be another example of pressure from a multinational causing delay.
We all appreciate that inquiries and reports must be respected, believed and accepted by the general public, and that their integrity is extremely important. In this case, pressure from a multinational company to delay publication of a report must lead us to question its integrity. For all those reasons, the matter is of sufficient importance and urgency for me to request the Adjournment of the House to debate the matter.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the delayed publication of the report of the inquiry into the Chinook helicopter crash in the Shetlands in November 1986.
I listened with great care to the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, my sole duty in considering an application under Standing Order No. 20 is to decide whether it should be given precedence over the business set down for this evening or for tomorrow. I regret that the matter raised does not meet the requirements of Standing Order No. 20, so I cannot submit his application to the House.

Point of Order
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that a new parliamentary building is being prepared across the road from the House. I wonder what jurisdiction you have in that respect, because it was reported to me that, in order to celebrate 40 years of NATO, somebody hung up a banner proclaiming
"Get out of NATO. No nukes here"
which I thought was pretty good for a start. I wondered whether you, Mr. Speaker, had authorised that banner to be hung up, or whether it has something to do with honouring Gorbachev's visit.
Mr. Speaker: I have a pretty good view from my residence.
Mr. Skinner: Did you see that banner, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: No, I did not see it.

Re-Enfranchisement of the People
3.57 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to restore a full franchise.
Signs that electoral registration is not as healthy as it ought to be come from three sources: first, an examination of recent returns from electoral registration officers; secondly, comments from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys—although I shall mention only one of them now; thirdly, an assessment of the impact and purposes of the poll tax legislation. Those combined sources show that we are heading for a democratic and constitutional crisis over the state of the franchise.
As to the evidence from electoral returns, in Scotland —where the poll tax has been a serious issue since the 1987 general election, causing the Tories to suffer many crushing defeats in that election—there has been an alarming drop in electoral registration. In each year from 1979 to 1987, there was a steady increase in the size of the Scottish electorate, yet 62,000 names have disappeared from the registers since 1987. That includes a drop of 25,000 in Glasgow, or 4·4 per cent. in the number previously registered. The loss of electors in Scotland seems to have little to do with demographic factors such as the balance between the death of electors and new 18-year-old electors being added to the register.
Commenting on the loss of electors between 1987 and 1988, when there was a loss of 27,500 in Scotland, the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, in its "Electoral Statistics", published in 1988, said:
"this does not appear to have arisen from demographic causes",
such as I have already mentioned. There has been little change in the number of 18-year-olds coming on to the register and no dramatic fall in the total population.
England and Wales have not yet been subjected to massive agitation on the poll tax but, with poll tax registration starting, that concern will dominate the coming county council and European elections. A drop in registration in England and Wales could follow. A recent MORI survey in Manchester showed that up to 10 per cent. of the people would refuse to register electorally as the poll tax and electoral registers are seen as linked, and are in fact linked. But even now, there could be something to hide about the 1989 electoral registration figures. Given that district council registration figures are to be published at the end of this month and constituency figures at the end of May, why can the House not be supplied with at least the district figures which are shortly to be published and which have been available locally since 15 February?
I raised this matter during business questions on 16 March and in a question for written answer on 28 February, when no information was supplied. It is also a matter that I have since pursued with the Leader of the House with no success. There are indications in areas such as Liverpool of serious worry about the number of people appearing on the electoral register, with perhaps as many as 10 per cent. having disappeared in the past year. This information is available and should be published and made available to the House so that hon. Members can examine its implications.
The main purpose of my Bill is to separate the poll tax register from the electoral register, making it illegal for poll
28
tax registrars to make use of electoral registers. This will only partly overcome the problem that I have highlighted, for poll tax registrars and electoral registrars can be the same persons, carrying information from each register in their heads. Only a full repeal of the poll tax legislation, which would be a major money Bill, can remove the evil of the inevitable link between the poll tax register and the electoral register.
The whole aim and purpose of the poll tax has been to attempt to fiddle the democratic and constitutional structure of this country. It has pushed poorer people off the register and continues to do so. It is taxing people to qualify them to vote, something which we have not seen since universal franchise was established here in 1918 and 1928—although before those dates there were such things as 40-shilling freeholds in the nineteenth century. It will destroy local government and civil liberties and will manipulate local government election results. It contains a centralising power of an outrageous kind. It taxes people against the norms of all western democratic systems, which is itself an abuse of democratic and constitutional government.
It is utterly disgusting that forms filled in for electoral registration purposes should be used for purposes not included on those forms. That principle extends beyond the poll tax, so my Bill will also outlaw the sale of electoral registers for commercial purposes or for any reasons other than electoral purposes. Many people add notes to their electoral registration forms, asking for their names to be kept away from commercial interests, but there is nothing that a returning officer can do about such requests. The law should respect that wish for all people, without their needing to ask for a special dispensation.
Past Government policy on local government finance and the current poll tax legislation also hit at the funds available for electoral registration officers to conduct their essential work. My Bill will ensure that registration officers receive adequate back-up facilities in terms of canvassing provisions to contact potential voters and assist them to complete their electoral returns.
Further encouragement can be given by positive leading advertising campaigns for registration by the Home Office, and my Bill will provide for that. Let us compare the limited advertising poster campaigns and leafleting on electoral registration with the campaign being conducted by Abbey National to get people to vote on turning the company into a plc. Let us compare the Government's expenditure on advertising the poll tax, the Education Reform Act and numerous other measures with the amount spent on extending the franchise. Money is often spent on measures before they become law. Let us compare the advertising expenditure on privatisation—for instance, on softening up the market for water and electricity—with what we spend on encouraging people to have the right to vote. Should not advertising the franchise be given similar attention?
I ask all democrats to support by Bill, which seeks to establish a universal franchise as far as is currently possible. To achieve its full aim, however, another Bill will have to be added to it, for the repeal of the poll tax—and its time will come.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. Martin Redmond, Mr. Max Madden, Mr. Eric S. Heller,

29
Mr. Ken Livingstone, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Chris Mullin, Mr. Bernie Grant, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Mr. Jimmy Wray and Mr. Harry Cohen.

RE-ENFRANCHISEMENT OF THE PEOPLE
Mr. Harry Barnes accordingly presented a Bill to restore a full franchise: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 5 May and to be printed. [Bill 110.]
Orders of the Day

  Water Bill
  [3RD ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

  Water Bill
    Clause 163

      PAYMENTS TO EXISTING PENSION FUND
      4.7 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): I beg to move amendment No. 89, in page 162, line 20, after 'who', insert—
      '(a)'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 90 to 93.
      Mr. Moynihan: The purpose of the first two amendments, Nos. 89 and 90, is to secure the future of pension payments of former officers or employees of the Water Research Centre, the Water Authorities Association, the Water Industry Training Association, British Water International Limited, the International Association on Water Pollution Research and Control and the International Water Supply Association, known collectively as "the admitted bodies".
      As has already been announced, the water authorities superannuation fund will be administered from the transfer date by the National Rivers Authority, and this arrangement includes the second fund for the admitted bodies. The amendments proposed to clause 163 allow the Secretary of State to make orders designating the admitted bodies so that the powers and duties of the Secretary of State under that clause are extended to apply to their fund.
      The purpose of the other three amendments in the group is to allow discretionary payments made by water authorities by analogy with pension payments and the unfunded pensions administered by the Severn-Trent water authority to be continued after privatisation of the water industry. These unfunded payments can be divided into three categories.
      In addition to their obligations under the local government superannuation scheme, water authorities currently pay certain non-funded discretionary awards including gratuity awards, injury allowance, retirement compensation, added years pension enhancement, and a number of other benefits and associated pension increase payments to their own former employees and to employees of antecedent bodies.
      They are also responsible for pensions and pension increase benefits to former National Water Council employees and board members and former water authority chairmen and members. These payments, except for a small proportion of non-funded discretionary awards, are administered by the Severn-Trent water authority and the cost recharged to each authority according to the incidence of payment or according to a statutory formula.
      The second category is that of pension payments made directly by water authorities. Some pension payments are

      31
      made directly by water authorities, unlike those in the previous category which are administered by the Severn-Trent water authority, and the costs shared between authorities.
      Then there is the important group of payments made by local authorities. Local authorities currently pay pensions increases, allowances and gratuities in respect of former employees whose employment functions were transferred to the water industry in 1974, and then recharge the cost to the water authorities.
      Our objective in these amendments is to ensure that no pensioner is disadvantaged by the act of transfer of liability from a water authority to its successor company and that the responsibility for payment is clear both to the recipient and to the body which will be responsible for payment.
      The amendments therefore provide broad powers to make regulations to encompass all people or classes of people in respect of whom such pensions and discretionary payments are made, and to impose a duty on the National Rivers Authority and on successor companies or nominated holding companies to continue to make payments awarded by water authorities.
      Regulations which impose requirements on companies may be met only while the companies are wholly owned by the Crown. The administration for the first category of payments—that is, discretionary awards largely administered by Severn-Trent and unfunded pensions administered by Severn-Trent—will be transferred to the National Rivers Authority.
      The amendments provide that the Secretary of State will be responsible for providing the funds, out of money supplied by Parliament, for payments made by the NRA, and the administration costs. In the other two categories —where local authorities make payments in respect of former employees and then recharge the cost to water authorities, and where water authorities are making pension payments directly to pensioners—the responsibilities for payment are clear to those concerned.
      I see no reason to disturb those arrangements. On transfer date, those responsibilities will pass to the successor companies under schemes made under schedule 2 to the Bill. These amendments are designed to ensure that no pensioner is inadvertently disadvantaged by the transfer of liabilities.
      Mr. Peter L. Pike: The Minister is making the position clear for existing pensioners. Does he agree that it is equally important for the Bill to include provisions to ensure that existing and future employees enjoy the same protection? That will not be the position.
      Mr. Moynihan: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's conclusion. He wants the Government to introduce proposals which will secure pension arrangements for those who retire in the future as good as the current pension arrangements under the local government superannuation scheme. We have repeatedly given assurances that a mirror image scheme, which we discussed at length in Committee, will not be approved by the Secretary of State unless it gives proper effect to the Government's commitment to provide employees with the same benefits.
      32
      I think that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) would like these arrangements to have statutory backing for the future. We have made it clear that we do not believe that, in the context of privatisation, such statutory backing would be appropriate. It is via the trustees that we intend to pursue pension arrangements for the future. Given the commitment that I have given on behalf of the Secretary of State, I can absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that the trustees will, almost by definition, have a duty to pensioners. They could be sued for breach of trust if they did not, through the mirror image schemes, provide for pensioners in the future the same position as is accorded under the current arrangements.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Tim Boswell: I appreciate that the debate on this point is going on a little bit, but may I ask my hon. Friend whether it is not the case that, from now, if any employee is at any time dissatisfied with his pension arrangements, it will be open to him, as a result of recent legislation, to take out a personal pension as an alternative? That is an important safeguard, and a further measure of what might be called comparative competition in this respect.
      Mr. Moynihan: What my hon. Friend has said about comparative competition is an imaginative and accurate reflection. The possibility of opting out and joining a water plc scheme is very definitely there. What we are looking at today is the alternative for the employees who do not wish to opt out.
      In Committee and on the Floor of the House, hon. Members have argued very strongly that mirror image schemes must provide employees with the same benefits. When the money resolution was being debated on the Floor of the House, we said that a substantial amount of money—a figure of up to £800 million was mentioned—may be necessary in order to meet the commitment that I have given today.
      Amendment No. 91, to clause 183, is consequential. The clause provides the transfer date as the commencement date for schedule 23 generally. The amendment makes an exception of subordinate legislation, permitting it to be made in advance of the transfer date.
      I very much hope that the clarification of what are detailed and technical amendments, and my responses to hon. Members who have intervened, have assisted the House. What we are debating are effectively peripheral pension arrangements, and I hope that the House will welcome the additional assurances that have been given.
      Ms. Joan Walley: Opposition Members believe that no pensioner should be disadvantaged as a result of this legislation. Taking at face value the particular changes that the Minister has outlined, we should not wish to quibble at all. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) that the certainties for pensioners should be applied equally to those people who are currently employed by water authorities.
      What I want to know, specifically, is whether those people who have been transferred from the water authorities to the NRA will get exactly the same kind of treatment as other employees, given that, in respect of the

      33
      sale of shares in particular, they did not get the same treatment. I should welcome some clarification from the Minister on particular points concerning those people.
      Mr. Pike: The amendments in this group are obviously very important. They affect the rights of existing pensioners, some of whom used to work for local authorities when those bodies were responsible for water services prior to reorganisation in 1974. Of course, there are pensioners who have retired since then, and there are people who have earned a lot of pension. We understand exactly what the Minister's amendments seek to do. They go some way towards clarifying the Bill as it was debated in Committee.
      The Minister was absolutely right about the key part of my intervention a few moments ago. The crucial difference, of course, is the statutory protection for those people who currently work in the industry and for those who may come into it in the future. Certainly, the amendments do not go as far in that direction as we should like. It may be that the fall of the guillotine at 5.30 pm will make it impossible for us to reach an amendment in the next group. I hope that the Minister recognises that both Opposition Members and some Conservative Members are genuinely concerned about this matter, as are the employees in the industry.
      Ministers have referred to the mirror image pension scheme. They are confident that the trustees will be able to protect employees, but many of us doubt whether that will happen. If the Ministers were right there would be no argument, but people who have worked for many years in the industry fear that, when the Bill becomes law, the agreements will be changed, that the documents that provide for future pension provision will not be so good as they are now and that there will be no mirror image pension scheme.
      If the Secretary of State and the other Ministers really wanted a mirror image pension scheme to put in place, they could easily amend the Bill and introduce a statutory requirement that there should be such a scheme. The Government ought to be prepared to move in that direction because it would meet the fears of those who work in the industry. The Government need to go further than they have already gone if they are to gain the confidence of the workers in the industry.
      The private water companies may prove to be the biggest cause for concern. There is no guarantee that employees will be able to become trustees of the pension schemes, although the trustees ultimately decide these matters. After privatisation, pensions and conditions of service will have to be negotiated between employers and trade unions on behalf of the employees. Ministers have given us many assurances during our debates. I was assured in Committee that the Government would not approve any scheme that did not meet our fears. Unless the Bill is amended to meet those fears, our predictions will be fulfilled. I hope, therefore, that the Government will be prepared to meet the genuine fears of the employees in the industry.
      Mr. Richard Livsey: I welcome the amendments, particularly on behalf of former employees of the water authorities. In my constituency there are former employees of Severn-Trent and Welsh Water. I understand that the pension arrangements of
      34
      employees of Severn-Trent are different from those of other authorities. I hope that the Minister will take them into account.
      Mr. Moynihan: I am happy to give the confirmation that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) has sought. Those differences will be taken fully into account and will be mirrored—hence the phrase "mirror image". I was passed a number of pieces of paper during the speech of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). I am slightly concerned that the collective age of the admirable experts who have assisted us throughout the passage of the Bill may be closer to retirement age than the collective age of the Opposition Front Bench spokesman and myself. With a bit of luck, our collective ages are still short of retirement age. That, however, has not denied us the opportunity to study this subject in great depth and to be able to respond without notes to the important points that have been raised.
      It is appropriate to place on record a little more detail about the mirror image scheme. I understand the concerns of the hon. Member for Burnley. That is why we have sought new provisions to give the hon. Gentleman and others who are concerned about the scheme not being enshrined in legislation further reassurance.
      It has been suggested that the Government's commitment to the preservation of existing pension rights and the adoption of future changes in the local government superannuation scheme in the mirror image scheme would be best ensured, as the hon. Member for Burnley said, by statutory provision. I mentioned earlier that that view does not accord with the principles of privatisation and has not been part of privatisation legislation.
      It is customary in the private sector for pension schemes to be safeguarded under trust deed by trustees. This, therefore, is the way in which the mirror image scheme will operate. It would be anomalous to require a small number of companies in the private sector to be subject to legislative requirements for the running of a pension scheme for only some of their employees. We have repeatedly given assurances that the mirror image scheme will not be approved by the Secretary of State unless it gives proper effect to the Government's commitment that it will provide employees with the same benefits, including full index-linking, with the same level of employees' contributions at the transfer date.
      It has always been our intention that water authority employees' pension rights should be safeguarded. We now propose that further security for future rights will be provided by the terms of the trust deed. We have agreed with all the chairmen of the water authorities to provisions which will give particular reassurance. These are, first, that the trustees of the mirror image scheme should include at least two representatives of members; and secondly, that while there remain potential beneficiaries of the mirror image scheme, it should not be wound up or its benefits altered if any trustee objects. Representatives of members are more appropriate than representatives of employees, because there will come a time when there are no employees in the scheme. They will all have retired but they will still be members of the scheme drawing their benefits from it.
      I am specifically not requiring trustees to he representatives of trade union members, but I am not excluding that possibility if they happen to be appropriate

      35
      representatives of members. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that a pension scheme operated in this way will provide satisfactory assurance to employees who have chosen to transfer to the mirror image scheme.
      NRA employees will continue in the local government superannuation scheme as if nothing had happened. In other words, there will be complete continuity.
      I hope I have answered the two major points that have been raised.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 90, in page 162, line 21,, at end insert
      'or

      (b) have ceased to be officers or employees of any person designated for the purposes of this paragraph by order made by the Secretary of State.

      (1A) The Secretary of State shall not make an order designating a person for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above unless that person appears to him to be a person whose activities at any time before the transfer date consisted in, or were connected with, the carrying out of any function which is transferred by this Act or which corresponds to any such function or to any other function under this Act; and the power to make such an order shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Moynihan].

    Clause 164

      GENERAL RESTRICTIONS ON DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION
      Amendments made: No. 36, in page 164, line 15 at end insert
      'or to any information exclusively of a statistical nature'.—
      No. 41, in page 164, line 21, at end insert—
      '(6) Subject to subsection (7) below, nothing in this section shall preclude the disclosure of information—

      (a) if the disclosure is of information relating to a matter connected with the carrying out of the functions of a water undertaker or sewage undertaker and is made by one Minister of the Crown or government department to another; or

      (b) if the disclosure is for the purpose of enabling or assisting any public or other authority for the time being designated for the purposes of this section by an order made by the Secretary of State to discharge any functions which are specified in the order.

      (7) The power to make an order under subsection (6) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; and where such an order designates an authority for the purposes of paragraph (b) of that subsection, the order may—

      (a) impose conditions subject to which the disclosure of information is permitted by virtue of that paragraph; and

      (b) otherwise restrict the circumstances in which disclosure is so permitted.'—[Mr. Moynihan.]

    Clause 178

      GENERAL INTERPRETATION
      Mr. Moynihan: I beg to move amendment No. 58, in page 171, line 29, leave out 'alongside' and insert
      'in the close vicinity of'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 59.
      Mr. Moynihan: The amendments meet a commitment that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough
      36
      and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) in Committee on 7 March. They make it clear that telecommunications apparatus for use solely in connection with the operation of undertakers' pipes may be laid not just alongside but generally in the close vicinity of pipes. Hon. Members who served on the Committee will no doubt recall our important debate there. I promised to look carefully at the point that my hon. Friend raised, not least because, as he pointed out, the water undertakers do not necessarily lay the equipment at the same time as the water main, and it is not necessarily very close. It may be as close as 2 m to the water main, but it may be as far away as five. As my hon. Friend mentioned, the problem with the original drafting of the Bill was that clause 178 made it clear that the equipment had to be placed alongside. We recognise that that is not necessarily in the interests of those who are placing the new telephone apparatus and who might want it to be above or underneath the main.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 59, in page 171, line 30, leave out 'alongside' and insert
      'in the close vicinity of—[Mr. Moynihan.]

    Clause 180

      LOCAL STATUTORY PROVISIONS: CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS ETC
      4.30 pm
      Amendment made: No. 57, in page 177, line 14, at end insert—
      '(3A) Nothing in any order under this section may abrogate or curtail the effect of so much of any local statutory provision as confers any right of way or confers on or preserves for the public—

      (a) any right of enjoyment of air, exercise or recreation on land; or

      (b) any right of access to land for the purposes of exercise or recreation.'.—[Mr. Moynihan.]

    Clause 183

      SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
      Amendment made: No. 91, in page 179, line 1, after '23', insert
      'except so far as relating to the making of subordinate legislation'.—[Mr Moynihan.]
      Amendment made: No. 11—new schedule—
      'WATER QUALITY IN SCOTLAND
      1. In the Water (Scotland) Act 1980, after section 76, there shall be inserted the following Part—
      "PART VIA QUALITY OF WATER
      Duties of water authorities with respect to water quality.
      76A.—(1) It shall be the duty of a water authority—

      (a) when supplying water to any premises for domestic purposes to supply only water which is wholesome at the time of supply; and

      (b) so far as reasonably practicable, to ensure, in relation to each source or combination of sources from which that authority supplies water to premises for domestic purposes, that there is, in general, no deterioration in the quality of the water which is supplied from time to time from that source or combination of sources.

      (2) For the purposes of this section and section 76B below and subject to subsection (3) below, water supplied by a water authority to any premises shall not be regarded as unwholesome at the time of supply where it has ceased to be wholesome only after leaving the authority's pipes.
      (3) For the purposes of this section where water supplied by a water authority to any premises would not otherwise be regarded as unwholesome at the time of supply, that water shall be regarded as unwholesome at that time if—

      (a) it has ceased to be wholesome after leaving the authority's pipes but while in a pipe which is subject to water pressure from a main or which would be so subject but for the closing of some valve; and

      (b) it has so ceased in consequence of the failure of the authority, before supplying the water, to take such steps as may be prescribed for the purpose of securing the elimination or reduction to a minimum of any prescribed risk that the water would cease to be wholesome after leaving the authority's pipes.

      (4) The provisions of this section shall apply in relation to water which is supplied by a water authority whether or not the water is water which the authority is required to supply by virtue of any provision of this Act.
      Regulations for preserving water quality
      76B.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations require a water authority to take all steps as may be prescribed for the purpose of securing compliance with section 76A above; and, without prejudice to the generality of that power, regulations under this subsection may impose an obligation on a water authority—

      (a) to take all such steps as may be prescribed for monitoring and recording whether the water which that authority supplies to premises for domestic purposes is wholesome at the time of supply;

      (b) to take all such steps as may be prescribed for monitoring and recording the quality of the water from any source, or combination of sources, which that authority uses or is proposing to use for supplying water to any premises for domestic purposes;

      (c) to ensure that a source which that authority is using or proposing to use for supplying water for domestic purposes is not so used until prescribed requirements for establishing the quality of water which may be supplied from that source have been complied with;

      (d) to keep records of the localities within which all the premises supplied with water for domestic purposes by that authority are normally supplied from the same source or combination of sources;

      (e) to comply with prescribed requirements with respect to the analysis of water samples or with respect to internal reporting or organisational arrangements.

      (2) Without prejudice to subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State may by regulations make provision with respect to the use by water authorities, for the purposes of or in connection with the carrying out of their functions, of such processes and substances, and of products that contain or are made with such substances or materials, as he considers might affect the quality of any water; and, without prejudice to the generality of that power, regulations under this subsection may—

      (a) forbid the use by water authorities of processes, substances and products which have not been approved under the regulations or which contravene the regulations;

      (b) for the purpose of provision made by virtue of paragraph (a) above, require processes, substances and products used by water authorities to conform to such standards as may be prescribed by or approved under the regulations;

      (c) impose such other requirements as may be prescribed with respect to the use by water authorities of prescribed processes, substances and products;

      (d) provide for the giving, refusal and revocation, by prescribed persons, of approvals required for the purposes of the regulations, for such approvals to be capable of being made subject to such conditions as may be prescribed and for the modification and revocation of any such condition;

      (e) impose obligations to furnish prescribed persons with information reasonably required by those persons for the purpose of carrying out functions under the regulations; and

      38

      (f) require prescribed charges to be paid to persons carrying out functions under the regulations.

      (3) The Secretary of State may by regulations require a water authority—

      (a) to publish information about the quality of water supplied for domestic purposes to any premises by that authority; and

      (b) to provide information to prescribed persons about the quality of water so supplied.

      (4) Regulations under subsection (3) above—

      (a) shall prescribe both the information which is to be published or provided in pursuance of the regulations and the manner and circumstances in which it is to be published or provided;

      (b) may require the provision of information by a water authority to any person to be free of charge or may authorise it to be subject to the payment by that person to the authority of a prescribed charge; and

      (c) may impose such other conditions on the provision of information by a water authority to any person as may be prescribed.

      Provision of water where piped supplies insufficient or unwholesome
      76C.—(1) Where—

      (a) it is not practicable at reasonable cost for a water authority, by supplying water in pipes, to provide or maintain such a supply of wholesome water to any particular premises in its limits of supply as (so far as those premises are concerned) is sufficient for domestic purposes;

      (b) it is practicable at reasonable cost for the authority to provide such a supply to those premises otherwise than in pipes;

      (c) the insufficiency or unwholesomeness of the supply of water for domestic purposes to those premises is such as to cause a danger to life or health; and

      (d) the local authority in whose area those premises are situated notify the water authority of that danger and require the water authority to provide a supply otherwise than in pipes,

      it shall be the duty of the water authority, for such period as may be required by that local authority, to provide any supply to those premises which it is practicable at reasonable cost to provide otherwise than in pipes and which it is required to provide by that local authority.
      (2) Where under subsection (1) above a local authority require the provision by a water authority of a supply of water to any premises, that local authority—

      (a) shall be liable to the water authority for any charges payable in respect of the provision of that supply; but

      (b) shall have power to recover the whole or any part of any charges paid by virtue of this subsection from the owner or occupier of the premises to which the supply is provided.

      (3) In this section references to the provision of a supply of water to any premises otherwise than in pipes shall have effect, in a case in which it is practicable at reasonable cost to provide a supply (whether or not in pipes) to a place within a reasonable distance of those premises, as including references to the provision of a supply to that place.
      Enforcement of sections 76A to 76C
      76D.—(1) This section applies to enforcement of the duties of water authorities under sections 76A and 76C(1) and under regulations made under section 76B.
      (2) Without prejudice to its generality, section 11 above (power of Secretary of State to make a default order) shall have effect, subject to the following provisions of this section, for the enforcement by the Secretary of State of the duties referred to in subsection (1) above.
      (3) The Secretary of State may make an order under subsection (2) of section 11 without having caused a local inquiry to be held into the matter.
      (4) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (2) of section 11 if he is satisfied—

      (a) that the failures complained of were of a trivial nature; or

      (b) that the water authority have agreed to take and are taking all such steps as it appears to the Secretary of

      39
      State to be appropriate, for the time being, for them to take for the purpose of securing or facilitating compliance with these duties.

      General functions of local authorities in relation to water quality
      76E.—(1) It shall be the duty of every local authority to take all such steps as they consider appropriate for keeping themselves informed about the wholesomeness and sufficiency of water supplies provided to premises in their area, including every private supply to any such premises.
      (2) It shall be the duty of a local authority to notify any water authority of anything appearing to the local authority to suggest—

      (a) that any supply by that water authority of water for domestic purposes to any premises in the area of that local authority is, has been, or is likely to become unwholesome or (so far as any such premises are concerned) insufficient for those purposes;

      (b) that the unwholesomeness or insufficiency of any such supply is, was or is likely to be such as to cause a danger to life or health; or

      (c) that the duty imposed on that undertaker by virtue of section 76A(1)(b) above is being, has been or is likely to be so contravened as to affect any supply of water to premises in that area;

      and it shall be the duty of a local authority to require the provision of a supply in pursuance of section 76C above whenever, in a case falling within paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of that section, it is satisfied, in relation to any premises in their area, as to the matters specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of that subsection.
      (3) Where a local authority have notified a water authority of any such matter as is mentioned in subsection (2) above, it shall be the duty of that local authority, if they are not satisfied that all such remedical action as is appropriate will be taken by the water authority, to inform the Secretary of State about the contents of the notification.
      (4) It shall be the duty of a local authority to comply with any direction given by the Secretary of State to that local authority or to local authorities generally as to—

      (a) the cases and circumstances in which they are or are not to exercise any of the powers conferred on them by this Part in relation to private supplies; and

      (b) the manner in which those powers are to be exercised.

      (5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision, supplementing the provisions of this section, as he considers appropriate for—

      (a) imposing duties and conferring powers on local authorities with respect to the acquisition of information about the quality and sufficiency of water supplies provided to premises in their areas; and

      (b) regulating the performance of any duty imposed by or under this section.

      Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (5) above, regulations under that subsection may—

      (a) prescribe the matters to be taken into account by a local authority in determining, for the purposes of subsection (1) above, what is appropriate;

      (b) provide, for the purposes of the exercise or performance of any power or duty conferred or imposed on a local authority by or under this section, for such samples of water to be taken and analysed at such times and in such manner as may be prescribed;

      (c) authorise local authorities to exercise or perform any such power or duty through prescribed persons;

      (d) provide for the recovery by a local authority, from prescribed persons, of such amounts as may be prescribed in respect of expenses reasonably incurred by the authority in the exercise of any such power or the performance of any such duty.

      REMEDIAL POWERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN RELATION TO PRIVATE SUPPLIES
      —(1) Subject to the following provisions of this
      40
      section, where a local authority are satisfied in relation to any premises in their area which are supplied with water for domestic purposes by means of a private supply—

      (a) that any water which is being, has been or is likely to be supplied for those purposes to those premises by means of that private supply is not, was not or, as the case may be, is not likely to be wholesome; or

      (b) that that private supply is failing, has failed or is likely to fail to provide to any house on those premises such a supply of wholesome water as (so far as that house is concerned) is sufficient for domestic purposes,

      the local authority may serve a notice in relation to that private supply on one or more of the relevant persons.
      (2) A notice under this section in relation to a private supply of water to any premises shall—

      (a) give particulars of the matters mentioned in subsection (1) above in respect of which the notice is served;

      (b) specify the steps which, in the opinion of the local authority serving the notice, are required to be taken for ensuring that there is a supply of water to those premises which is both wholesome and (so far as any house on those premises is concerned) sufficient for domestic purposes;

      (c) specify a period ending not less than 28 days after the day on which the notice is served within which any representations or objections with respect to the notice must be received by that local authority; and

      (d) state the effect in relation to that notice of section 76G(2) and (3) below.

      (3) Subject to section 76G below, where a local authority serve a notice under this section on any relevant person they may do one or more of the following, that is to say—

      (a) by that notice designate as steps to be taken by the authority themselves such of the steps specified in the notice as they consider it appropriate to so designate;

      (b) by that notice require that person, within such reasonable period as may be specified in the notice, to take one or more of the steps so specified;

      (c) by that notice require that person, at such times as may be determined in accordance with provision contained in the notice, to make to another relevant person or to that authority such payments as may be so determined in respect of expenses reasonably incurred by that other person or that authority in taking any step specified in the notice;

      (d) by that notice undertake from time to time to make such payments to that person as may be so determined in respect of expenses reasonably incurred by that person in taking any step specified in the notice.

      (4) The power of a local authority to serve a notice under this section specifying the steps which are required to be taken in relation to any source from which a private supply is provided both to premises in the area of that authority and to premises in the area of another local authority shall be exercisable only where—

      (a) the other authority consent to the service of the notice; or

      (b) the authorities act jointly in exercising their respective powers under this section in relation to that source.

      (5) The powers conferred by this section and section 76G below shall be so exercised in relation to a private supply of water to any premises where there is no house as to secure that no local authority are required to bear any of the expenses incurred (whether by the authority or by any other person) in taking any steps for ensuring that the supply is wholesome which are specified in any notice under this section.
      (6) The steps that a relevant person may be required by a notice under this section to take in relation to any premises shall include—

      (a) requiring a supply of water to be provided to those premises by a water authority or by any other person; and

      41

      (b) taking such steps for the purpose of securing that such a requirement is complied with, and of enabling such a supply to be so provided, as may be specified in the notice.

      (7) For the purposes of this section and section 76G below the relevant persons, in relation to a private supply of water to any premises in the area of a local authority, are the owners and occupiers of those premises and (whether or not the source of the private supply is in that authority's area) the owners and occupiers of the premises where that source is situated and any other person who exercises powers of management or control in relation to that source.
      Effect confirmation and variation of notice under section 76F
      76G.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, a notice served by a local authority under section 76F above shall not take effect until the end of the period specified in the notice as the period within which representations or objections with respect to the notice must be received by that authority.
      (2) Where any written representation or objection with respect to a notice by a local authority under section 76F above is received by the authority, before the end of the period specified in the notice, from a person on whom the notice was served, that notice shall not take effect unless—

      (a) the notice is submitted by the authority to the Secretary of State and is confirmed by him either with or without modifications; or

      (b) the representation or objection is withdrawn.

      (3) If a local authority submit a notice under section 76F above to the Secretary of State for confirmation, the Secretary of State—

      (a) shall consider whether the notice should be confirmed and whether, if it is confirmed, it should be confirmed with or without modifications;

      (b) may, with respect to the matters specified in the notice or any proposed modification of it, direct the local authority to serve a notice under section 76F above, in such terms as may be specified in the direction, on any relevant person who has not previously been so served;

      (c) may, for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) above—

      (i) cause a local inquiry to be held; or

      (ii) afford to the local authority and to every person who has made representations or objections with respect to the notice or a proposed direction under paragraph (b) above an opportunity of appearing before, and being heard by, a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose;

      and

      (d) if he is satisfied that the person on whom any notice to be served in pursuance of a direction under paragraph (b) above has had a proper opportunity of having his representations or objections with respect to the proposal for the direction considered, dispense in relation to the notice so served with the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) above and of section 76F(2)(c) and (d) above.

      (4) Where the Secretary of State confirms a notice under section 761' above (whether with or without modifications)—

      (a) he, or if he so directs, the local authority concerned shall serve notice of that confirmation on every person originally served with the notice under that section; and

      (b) that notice shall take effect, with any modifications made by the Secretary of State, at such times as may be specified in the notice served under this subsection.

      (5) Where any relevant person who is required by virtue of a notice under section 76F above to take any step in relation to any premises fails to take that step within the period specified in the notice, the authority which served the notice may, in accordance with any applicable provision having effect by virtue of section 76H below, take that step themselves.
      (6) Where any step is taken by a local authority in relation to any premises by virtue of subsection (5) above—
      42

      (a) the authority may recover from the person who failed to take that step within the specified period any expenses reasonably incurred by the authority in taking that step; and

      (b) for the purposes of any requirement under which payments are required to be made to that person by any person other than the authority, sums paid by virtue of paragraph (a) above in respect of the taking of any step shall be deemed to be expenses incurred in the taking of that step by the person who failed to take it.

      (7) Nothing in this Act shall confer any right of action on any person in respect of any loss or damage sustained by t hat person in consequence of the failure by any other person to take any step specified in a notice under section 76F above; but any sum required to be paid to any person by virtue of any requirement or undertaking contained in such a notice shall be recoverable by that person from the person who is required to pay it.
      (8) Any requirement which is imposed by virtue of a notice under section 76F above on the owner or occupier of any premises and is expressed to bind those premises in relation to the owners or occupiers from time to time shall bind successive owners or, as the case may be, occupiers of those premises; and section 65 above (power of local authority to make a charging order in respect of costs) shall apply to a requirement under section 64 above.
      (9) Subject to subsection (10) below, a local authority may be notice served on any person modify or revoke the effect in relation to that person of any notice under section 76F above or this subsection (including a notice which has been confirmed, with or without modifications, by the Secretary of State).
      (10) Section 76F(2)(c) and (d) and subsections (1) to (4) above shall apply, as they apply in relation to a notice under section 76F above, in relation to any notice served by a local authority on any person under subsection (9) above except where the notice—

      (a) extends the period within which any step is required to be taken by that person; or

      (b) discharges, postpones or abates any obligation of that person to make a payment to the local authority.

      Incidental powers of local authorities
      76H.—( 1) Subject to subsection (5) below, a local authority may serve on any person a notice requiring him to furnish that authority, within a period or at times specified:in the notice and in a form and manner so specified, with such information as is reasonably required by that authority for the purpose of exercising or performing any power or duly conferred or imposed on that authority by or under any of sections 76E to 76G above.
      (2) Any person designated in writing for the purpose by any local authority may—

      (a) enter any premises for the purpose, in relation to any private supply, of—

      (i) determining whether, and if so in what manner, any power or duty conferred or imposed on that authority by or under any of sections 76E to 76G above should be exercised or performed; or

      (ii) exercising any such power or performing any such duty;

      (b) enter any premises to which a supply of water is provided by a water authority for the purpose, in relation to a supply so provided, of determining whether, and if so in what manner, such a power should be exercised or such a duty performed or of exercising such a power or performing such a duty or

      (c) carry out such inspections, measurements and tests on premises entered by that person or of articles found on any such premises, and take away such samples of water or of any land or articles, as the local authority—

      (i) consider appropriate for the purposes of any such power or duty; and

      (ii) have authorised that person to carry out or take away,

      43
      and the provisions of subsections (3) to (7) of section 38 shall apply to the right of entry given by this subsection to any person designated by a local authority as they apply to the right of entry of an authorised officer of a water authority.

      (3) Entry into any premises shall not be demanded as of right by virtue of this section except—

      (a) in an emergency, or

      (b) at a reasonable time and after 24 hours' notice of the intended entry has been given to the occupier of the premises.

      (4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for restricting the information which may be required under subsection (1) above and for determining the form in which the information is to be so required.
      (5) A person who fails without reasonable excuse to comply with the requirements of a notice served on him under subsection (1) above shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
      Standards of wholesomeness
      76I.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision that water that is supplied to any premises is or is not to be regarded as wholesome for the purposes of this Part if it satisfies or, as the case may be, fails to satisfy such requirements as may be prescribed.
      (2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, regulations under this section may, for the purpose of determining the wholesomeness of any water—

      (a) prescribe general requirements as to the purposes for which the water is to be suitable;

      (b) prescribe specific requirements as to the substances that are to be present in or absent from the water and as to the concentrations of substances which are or are required to be present in the water;

      (c) prescribe specific requirements as to other characteristics of the water;

      (d) provide that the question whether prescribed requirements are satisfied may be determined by reference to such samples as may be prescribed;

      (e) enable the Secretary of State to authorise such relaxations of and departures from the prescribed requirements (or from any of them) as may be prescribed, to make any such authorisation subject to such conditions as may be prescribed and to modify or revoke any such authorisation or condition; and

      (f) enable the Secretary of State to authorise a local authority (either instead of the Secretary of State or concurrently with him) to exercise in relation to a private supply any power conferred on the Secretary of State by regulations made by virtue of paragraph (e) above.

      Power to give effect to international obligations
      76J. The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that the provisions of this Part shall have effect with such modifications as may be prescribed for the purpose of enabling Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to give effect to—

      (a) any Community obligations; or

      (b) any international agreement to which the United Kingdom is for the time being a party.

      Interpretation etc. of Part VIA.
      76K.—(1) In this Part—

      'analyse', in relation to any sample of land or water, includes subjecting the sample to a test of any description, and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly;

      'local authority' means an islands or district council;

      'private supply' means, subject to subsection (2) below, a supply of water provided otherwise than by a water authority (including a supply provided for the purposes of the bottling of water) and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly;

      'substance' includes micro-organisms and any natural or artificial substance or other matter, whether it is in solid or liquid form or in the form of a gas or vapour.;

      'wholesome' and cognate expressions shall be construed subject to the provisions of any regulations made under section 76I.

      (2) For the purposes of any reference in this Part to a private supply, or to supplying water by means of a private supply, water shall be treated as supplied to any premises not only where it is supplied from outside those premises, but also where it is abstracted, for the purpose of being used or consumed on those premises, from a source which is situated on the premises themselves; and for the purposes of this subsection water shall be treated as used on any premises where it is bottled on those premises for use or consumption elsewhere.
      (3) The rights conferred by virtue of this Part as against the owner or occupier of any premises shall be without prejudice to any rights and obligations, as between themselves, of the owner and occupier of the premises in question.".'.—[Mr. Moynihan.]
      Amendment made: No. 88—new schedule—

      'CONTROL OF POLLUTION IN SCOTLAND
      1. The Control of Pollution Act 1974 as it applies to Scotland is amended in accordance with the provisions of this Schedule.
      2. In subsection (4) of section 4 (meaning of "land"), for the words "in a stream" there shall be substituted the words "in controlled waters".
      3. In subsection (9) of section 11, for the words "relevant waters" there shall be substituted the words "controlled waters".
      4. For sections 31 to 42 there shall be substituted the following sections—
      General provisions Waters to which Part II applies
      30A.—(1) This part applies to any waters (in this Part referred to as 'controlled waters') of any of the following classes—

      (a) relevant territorial waters, that is to say, subject to subsection (5) below, the waters which extend seaward for three miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea adjacent to Scotland is measured;

      (b) coastal waters, that is to say, any waters which are within the area which extends landward from those baselines as far as the limit of the highest tide or, in the case of the waters of any relevant river or watercourse, as far as the fresh-water limit of the river or watercourse, together with the waters of any enclosed dock which adjoins waters within that area;

      (c) inland waters, that is to say, the waters of any relevant loch or pond or of so much of any relevant river or watercourse as is above the fresh-water limit:

      (d) ground waters, that is to say, any waters contained in underground strata, or in—

      (i) a well, borehole or similar work sunk into underground strata, including any adit or passage constructed in connection with the well, borehole or work for facilitating the collection of water in the well, borehole or work; or

      (ii) any excavation into underground strata where the level of water in the excavation depends wholly or mainly on water entering it from the strata.

      (2) The Secretary of State—

      (a) shall deposit maps with each river purification authority showing what appear to him to be the fresh-water limits of every relevant river or watercourse in the area of that authority; and

      (b) may from time to time, if he considers it appropriate to do so be reason of any change of what appears to him to be the fresh-water limit of any river or watercourse, deposit a map showing a revised limit for that river or watercourse;

      and in subsection (1) above 'fresh-water limit', in relation to any river or watercourse, means the place for the time being shown as the fresh-water limit of that river or watercourse in the latest map deposited for that river or watercourse under this subsection.
      (3) It shall be the duty of each river purification authority to keep any maps deposited with it under subsection (2) above available, at all reasonable times, for inspection by the public free of charge.
      (4) in this section—

      'miles' means international nautical miles of 1,852 metres;

      'loch or pond' includes a reservoir of any description;

      'relevant loch or pond' means (subject to subsection (5) below) any loch or pond which (whether it is natural or artificial or above or below ground) discharges into a relevant river or watercourse or into another loch or pond which is itself a relevant loch or pond;

      'relevant river or watercourse' means any river or watercourse (including an underground river or watercourse and an artificial river or watercourse) which is neither a public sewer nor a sewer or drain which drains into a public sewer.

      (5) The Secretary of State may by order provide—

      (a) that any area of the territorial sea adjacent to Scotland is to he treated as if it were an area of relevant territorial waters for the purposes of this Part;

      (b) that any loch or pond which does not discharge into a relevant river or watercourse or into a relevant loch or pond is to be treated for those purposes as a relevant loch or pond.

      (6) The power of the Secretary of State to make an order under subsection (5) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; and such an order may—

      (a) contain such supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate; and

      (b) for the purposes of any provision made by virtue of paragraph (a) above, make different provision for different cases, including different provision in relation to different persons, circumstance or localities.

      Classification of quality of waters
      30B.—(1) The Secretary of State may, in relation to any description of controlled waters (being a description applying to some or all of the waters of a particular class or of two or more different classes), by regulations prescribe a system of classifying the quality of those waters according to criteria specified in the regulations.
      (2) The criteria specified in regulations under this section in relation to any classification shall consist of one or more of the following, that is to say—

      (a) general requirements as to the purposes for which the waters to which the classification is applied are to be suitable;

      (b) specific requirements as to the substances that are to be present in or absent from the water and as to the concentrations of substances which are or are required to be present in the water;

      (c) specific requirements as to other characteristics of those waters;

      and for the purposes of any such classification regulations under this section may provide that the question whether prescribed requirements are satisfied may be determined by reference to such samples as may be prescribed.
      Water quality objectives
      30C.—(1) For the purpose of maintaining and improving the quality of controlled waters the Secretary of State may, by serving a notice on a river purification authority specifying—

      (a) one or more of the classifications for the time being prescribed under section 30B above; and

      (b) in relation to each specified classification, a date, establish the water quality objectives for any waters within the area of that authority which are, or are included in, waters of a description prescribed for the purposes of that section.

      (2) The water quality objectives for any waters to which a notice under this section relates shall be the satisfaction by those waters, on and at all times after each date specified in the notice, of the requirements which at the time of the notice were the requirements for the classification in relation to which that date is so specified.
      (3) Where the Secretary of State has established water quality objectives under this section for any waters he may review objectives for those waters if—

      (a) five years or more have elapsed since the service of the last notice under subsection (1) or (6) of this section to he served in respect of those waters; or

      46

      (b) the river purification authority on which that notice has been served, after consultation with such persons as it considers appropriate, requests a review;

      and the Secretary of State shall not exercise his power to establish objectives for any waters by varying the existing objectives for those waters except in consequence of such a review.
      (4) Where the Secretary of State proposes to exercise his power under this section to establish or vary the objectives for any waters in the area of a river purification authority he shall—

      (a) give notice to that authority setting out his proposal and specifying the period (not being less than three months from the date of publication of the notice) within which representations with respect to the proposal may be made; and

      (b) consider any representations which are duly made; and if he decides, after considering any such representations, to exercise his power to establish or vary those objectives, he may do so either in accordance with the proposal contained in the notice or in accordance with that proposal as modified in such manner as he considers appropriate.

      (5) A notice under subsection (4) above shall be given—

      (a) by publishing the notice in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for bringing it to the attention of persons likely to he affected by it; and

      (b) by serving a copy of the notice on the authority.

      (6) If, on a review under this section or in consequence of any representations made following such a review for the purposes of subsection (4) above, the Secretary of State decides that the water quality objectives for any waters in the area of a river purification authority should remain unchanged, he shall serve notice of that decision on that authority.
      General duties to achieve and maintain objectives etc.
      30D.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State and of each river purification authority to exercise the powers conferred on him or it by or under the following provisions of this Part or the provisions of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Acts 1951 and 1965 in such manner as ensures, so far as it is practicable by the exercise of those powers to do so, that the water quality objectives specified for any waters in a notice under section 30C above are achieved at all times.
      (2) It shall be the duty of each river purification authority, for the purposes of the carrying out of its functions under the following provisions of this Part or the provisions of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Acts 1951 and 1965, to monitor the extent of pollution in controlled waters.
      Control of entry of polluting matter and effluents into water Control of pollution of rivers and coastal waters etc.
      31.—(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person shall be guilty of an offence if he causes or knowingly permits—

      (a) any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter to enter controlled waters; or

      (b) any matter to enter any inland waters so as to tend (either directly or in combination with other matter which he or another person causes or permits to enter those waters) to impede the proper flow of the waters in a manner leading or likely to lead to a substantial aggravation of pollution due to other causes or of the consequences of such pollution; or

      (c) any solid waste matter to enter controlled waters

      (2) A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of the preceding subsection if—

      (a) the entry in question is authorised by, or is a consequence of an act authorised by, a disposal licence or a consent given by the Secretary of State or a river purification authority in pursuance of this Act and the entry or act is in accordance with the conditions, if any, to which the licence or consent is subject; or

      (b) the entry in question is authorised by, or is a consequence of an act authorised by—

      (i) section 33 of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980 (which among other things relates to

      47
      temporary discharges by water authorities in connection with the construction of works) or any prescribed enactment, or

      (ii) any provisions of a local Act or statutory order which expressly confers powers to discharge effluent into water, or

      (iii) any licence granted under Part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985; or

      (c) the entry in question is caused or permitted in an emergency in order to avoid danger to the public and—

      (i) he takes all such steps as are reasonably practicable in the circumstances for minimising the extent of the entry in question and of its polluting effects; and

      (ii) as soon as reasonably practicable after the entry occurs, particulars of the entry are furnished to the river purification authority in whose area it occurs; or

      (d) the matter in question is trade or sewage effluent discharged as mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 32 or matter discharged as mentioned in paragraph (b) or (c) of that subsection and the entry in question is not from a vessel;

      and a person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of the preceding subsection by reason only of his permitting water from an abandoned mine to enter controlled waters.
      (3) A person shall not by virtue of paragraph (b) or (c) of subsection (1) of this section be guilty of an offence by reason of his depositing the solid refuse of a mine or quarry on any land so that it falls or is carried into inland waters if—

      (a) he deposits the refuse on the land with the consent (which shall not be unreasonably withheld) of the river purification authority in whose area the land is situated; and

      (b) no other site for the deposit is reasonably practicable; and

      (c) he takes all reasonably practicable steps to prevent the refuse from entering those inland waters.

      (4) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that, with a view to preventing poisonous, noxious or polluting matter from entering any controlled waters, it is appropriate to prohibit or restrict the carrying on in a particular area of activities which he considers are likely to result in pollution of the waters, then, subject to subsection (5) below, he may by regulations—

      (a) designate that area; and

      (b) provide that prescribed activities shall not be carried on at any place within the area except with the consent (which shall not be unreasonably withheld) of the river purification authority in whose area the place is situated and in accordance with any reasonable conditions to which the consent is subject;

      (c) provide that a contravention of the regulations shall be an offence and prescribe the maximum penalty for the offence; and

      (d) make provision for the imposition by river purification authorities of charges in respect of the consent mentioned in paragraph (b) above.

      (5) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, before he makes any regulations under subsection (4) above—

      (a) to publish in the Edinburgh Gazette and in at least one newspaper circulating in the area in question a copy of the proposed regulations and a notice specifying—

      (i) a period of not less than twenty-eight days, beginning with the date on which the notice is first published, within which objections to the proposed regulations may be made, and

      (ii) the person to whom such objections may be made; and

      (b) to consider any objections to the proposed regulations which are made within that period and, if such an objection is so made by a prescribed person and is not withdrawn, to cause a local inquiry to be held in pursuance of section 96 of this Act with respect to the proposed regulations;

      and the Secretary of State may, after considering any such objections as are mentioned in paragraph (b) of this
      48
      subsection and the report of any person appointed to hold a local inquiry with respect to the proposed regulations, make the regulations either in the form in which a copy of them was published in pursuance of this subsection or in that form with such modifications as he considers appropriate.
      (6) A river purification authority may by byelaws make such provision as the authority considers appropriate for prohibiting or regulating the washing or cleaning, in any controlled waters in its area, of things of a kind specified in the byelaws; and a person who contravenes any byelaws made by virtue of this subsection shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale or such smaller sum as is specified in the byelaws.
      (7) A person guilty of an offence by virtue of subsection (1) of this section shall be liable—

      (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;

      (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both.

      (8) The maximum penalty prescribed in pursuance of subsection (4) of this section shall not exceed the penalties specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the preceding subsection.
      (9) In subsection (2) of this section—

      "disposal licence" has the same meaning as in Part I of this Act;

      "local Act" includes enactments in a public general Act which amend a local Act;

      "statutory order" means an order, byelaw, scheme or award made under an Act of Parliament, including an order or scheme confirmed by Parliament or brought into operation in accordance with special parliamentary procedure.

      Requirements to take precautions against pollution
      31A.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision—

      (a) for prohibiting a person from having custody or control of any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter unless prescribed works and prescribed precautions and other steps have been carried out or take for the purpose of preventing the matter from entering controlled waters;

      (b) for requiring a person who already has custody or control of, or makes use of, any such matter to carry out such works for that purpose as may be prescribed.

      (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred by subsection (1) above, regulations under that subsection may—

      (a) confer power on the river purification authorities—

      (i) to determine for the purposes of the regulations the circumstances in which a person is required to carry out works or take any precautions or other steps; and

      (ii) by notice to that person, to impose the requirement and to specify or describe the works, precautions or other steps which that person is required to carry out or take;

      (b) provide for appeals to the Secretary of State against notices served by a river purification authority in pursuace of provision made by virtue of paragraph (a) above; and

      (c) provide that a contravention of the regulations shall be an offence the penalty for which shall be—

      (i) on summary conviction, imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.

      (ii) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both.

      Control of discharge of trade and sewage effluent etc. into rivers and coastal waters etc.
      32.—(1) Subject to subsections (3) to (5) of this section, a person shall be guilty of an offence if he causes or knowingly permits—

      (a) any trade effluent or sewage effluent to be discharged—

      49

      (i) into any controlled waters, or

      (ii) from land in Scotland through a pipe into the sea out-side the seaward limits of controlled waters, or

      (iii) from a building or from plant on to or into any land or into any waters of a loch or pond which are not inland waters;

      or

      (b) any matter other than trade or sewage effluent to be discharged into controlled waters from a sewer as defined by section 59(1) of the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968 or from a drain as so defined; or

      (c) any matter other than trade or sewage effluent to be discharged into controlled waters from a drain which a roads authority is obliged or entitled to keep open by virtue of section 31 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, and in respect of which the river purification authority in whose area the discharge occurs has, not later than the beginning of the period of three months ending with the date of the discharge, served on the roads authority a notice stating that this paragraph is to apply to the drain,

      unless the discharge is made with the consent in pursuance of section 34 of this Act of the river purification authority in whose area the discharge occurs (or, in a case falling within paragraph (a)(ii) of this subsection, of the river purification authority whose area includes the point at which the pipe passes or first passes into or under controlled waters from the sea outside them) and is in accordance with the conditions, if any, to which the consent is subject.
      (2) Where any sewage effluent is discharged as mentioned in paragraph (a) of the preceding sub section from any works or sewer vested in a local authority and the authority did not cause or knowingly permit the discharge but was bound to receive into the works or sewer, either unconditionally or subject to conditions which were observed, matter included in the discharge, the authority shall be deemed for the purposes of that subsection to have caused the discharge.
      (3) The Secretary of State may—

      (a) by an order made before subsection (1) of, this section comes into force provide that that subsection shall not, while the order is in force, apply to discharges which are of a kind or in an area specified in the order and for which, if this Act had not been passed, consent in pursuance of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Acts 1951 and 1965 would not have been required;

      (b) by order vary or revoke any order in force by virtue of the preceding paragraph;

      and an order made by virtue of this subsection may require any river purification authority specified in the order to publish in a manner so specified such information about the order as is so specified.
      (4) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to any discharge which—

      (a) is from a vessel; or

      (b) is authorised by a licence granted under Part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, and a person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if—

      (i) the discharge is caused or permitted in an emergency in order to avoid danger to the public;

      (ii) he takes all such steps as are reasonably practicable in the circumstances for minimising the extent of the discharge and of its polluting effects; and

      (iii) as soon as reasonably practicable after the discharge occurs, particulars of the discharge are furnished to the river purification authority in whose area it occurs.

      (5) A local authority shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of subsection (1) of this section by reason only of the fact that a discharge from a sewer or works vested in the authority contravenes conditions of a consent relating to the discharge if—

      (a) the contravention is attributable to a discharge which another person caused or permitted to be made into the sewer or works; and

      50

      (b) the authority either was not bound to receive the discharge into the sewer or works or was bound to receive it there subject to conditions but the conditions were not observed; and

      (c) the authority could not reasonably have been expected to prevent the discharge into the sewer or works;

      and a person shall not be guilty of such an offence in consequence of a discharge which he caused or permitted to be made into a sewer or works vested in local authority if the authority was bound to receive the discharge there either unconditionally or subject to conditions which were observed.
      (6) In subsection (2) of I his section and the preceding subsection, "local authority" means a local authority within the meaning of the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968.
      (7) A person who is guilty of an offence by virtue of subsection (1) of this section shall be liable—

      (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;

      (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both.

      Control of sanitary appliances in vessels.
      33.—(1) A river purification authority may by byelaws make such provision as the authority, considers appropriate for prohibiting or regulating the keeping or use, on any controlled waters in the area of the authority, of vessels of a kind specified in the byelaws which are provided with sanitary appliances; and a person who contravenes any byelaw made by virtue of this section shall be guilty of an offence.
      (2) The Secretary of State may by order provide that any byelaws specified in the order which were made by virtue of section 25(1)(c) of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act 1951 (byelaws) shall have effect, with such modifications (if any) as are so specified, as if made by virtue of the preceding subsection.
      (3) In this section "sanitary appliance" means a water closet or other prescribed appliance (except a sink, bath and a shower-bath) which is designed to permit polluting matter to pass into the water on which the vessel in question is for the time being situated.
      (4) A person guilty of an offence by virtue of any of the preceding provisions of this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of an amount not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale or such smaller sum as may be specified in the byelaws.

      CONSENTS FOR DISCHARGES
      Consents for discharges of trade and sewage effluent etc.
      34.—(1) An application to a river purification authority for consent in pursuance of this section for discharges of any effluent or other matter shall be accompanied or supplemented by all such information as the authority may reasonably require; and the authority may if it thinks fit treat an application for consent for discharges at two or more places as separate applications for consent for discharges at each of those places.
      (2) Subject to the following section, it shall be the duty of a river purification authority to which an application for consent is made in pursuance of this section—

      (a) to give the consent either unconditionally or subject to conditions or to refuse it; and

      (b) not to withhold the consent unreasonably;

      and if within the period of three months beginning with the date when an application for consent is received by the authority, or within such longer period as may at any time be agreed upon in writing between the authority and the applicant, the authority has neither given nor refused the consent nor informed the applicant that the application has been transmitted to the Secretary of State in pursuance of the following section, the authority shall be deemed to have refused the consent.
      (3) If it appears to the authority that a person has, without the authority's consent, caused or permitted matter to be discharged in its area in contravention of section 32(1) of this Act and that a similar contravention by that person is likely, the authority may if it thinks fit serve on him an instrument in writing giving its consent, subject to conditions specified in the instrument, for discharges of a kind so specified; but

      51
      consent given in pursuance of this subsection shall not relate to any discharge which occurred before the instrument giving the consent was served on the recipient of the instrument.
      (4) The conditions subject to which the authority may give its consent in pursuance of this section shall be such reasonable conditions as the authority thinks fit; and without prejudice to the generality of the preceding provisions of this subsection those conditions my include reasonable conditions—

      (a) as to the places at which the discharges to which the consent relates may be made and as to the design and construction of any outlets for the discharges;

      (b) as to the nature, origin, composition, temperature, volume and rate of the discharges and as to the period during which the discharges may be made;

      (c) as to the provision of facilities for taking samples of the matter discharged and in particular as to the provision, maintenance and use of manholes, inspection chambers, observation wells and bore-holes in connection with the discharges;

      (d) as to the provision, maintenance and testing of meters for measuring the volume and rate of the discharges and apparatus for determining the nature, composition and temperature of the discharges;

      (e) as to the keeping of records of the nature, origin, composition, temperature, volume and rate of the discharges and in particular of records of readings of meters and other recording apparatus provided in accordance with any other condition attached to the consent;

      (f) as to the making of returns and the giving of other information to the authority about the nature, origin, composition, temperature, volume and rate of the discharges; and

      (g) as to the steps to be taken, in relation to the discharges or by way of subjecting any substance likely to affect the description of matter discharged to treatment or any other process, for minimising the polluting effects of the discharges on any controlled waters;

      and it is hereby declared that consent may be given in pursuance of this section subject to different conditions in respect of different periods.
      (5) A person who, in an application for consent in pursuance of this section, makes any statement which he knows to be false in a material particular or recklessly makes any statement which is false in a material particular shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or on conviction on indictment to a fine.
      Reference to Secretary of State of certain applications for consent
      35.—(1) The Secretary of State may, either in consequence of representations made to him or otherwise, direct a river purification authority to transmit to him for determination applications for consent in pursuance of the preceding section which are specified in the direction or are of a kind so specified, and it shall be the duty of the authority to comply with the direction and to inform each relevant applicant that his application has been transmitted to the Secretary of State.
      (2) Before determining an application transmitted to him by a river purification authority in pursuance of this section the Secretary of State may if he thinks fit, and shall if a request to be heard with respect to the application is made to him in accordance with regulations by the applicant or the authority, cause a local inquiry to be held in pursuance of section 96 of this Act into the application or afford to the applicant and the authority an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose.
      (3) Where in pursuance of the preceding subsection the Secretary of State affords to an applicant and a river purification authority an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person with respect to the application in question, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to afford an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by that person to any person who, in pursuance of subsection (1)(c) or (5) of the following section, has made representations relating to the application.
      (4) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to determine an application transmitted to him by a river purification authority in pursuance of this section by directing the authority to refuse its consent in pursuance of the preceding section in consequence of the application or to give the consent either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as are specified in the direction, and it shall be the duty of the authority to comply with the direction.
      Provisions supplementary to ss. 34 and 35
      36.—(1) Where a river purification authority receives an application for consent in pursuance of section 34 of this Act or serves an instrument in pursuance of subsection (3) of that section, it shall be the duty of the authority, before deciding whether to give or refuse consent in pursuance of the application or, as the case may be, after serving the instrument—

      (a) to publish in the prescribed form notice of the application or instrument in two successive weeks in a newspaper or newspapers circulating in—

      (i) the area or areas in which the places are situated at which it is proposed in the application that the discharges should be made or, as the case may be, at which discharges are the subject of consent given by the instrument, and

      (ii) the area or areas appearing to the authority to be in the vicinity of any controlled waters which the authority considers likely to be affected by the discharges,

      and, not earlier than the day following that on which the first publication of the notice is completed in all relevant areas in pursuance of the preceding provisions of this paragraph, to publish such a notice in the Edinburgh Gazette;

      (b) to send copies of the application or instrument to each local authority in whose area it is proposed in application that a discharge should be made or in whose area a discharge is the subject of consent given by the instrument and, in the case of an application or instrument relating to coastal waters, relevant territorial waters or an application relating to waters outside the seaward limits of relevant territorial waters, to the Secretary of State; and

      (c) to consider any written representations relating to the application or instrument which are made to the authority by any person within the period of six weeks beginning with the date on which the notice of the application or instrument is published in the Edinburgh Gazette.

      (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, "local authority" means a regional or district council, and any place at sea at which it is proposed in an application that a discharge should be made shall be treated as situated at the point on land nearest to that place.
      (3) Where notice of an application is published by a river purification authority in pursuance of subsection (1)(a) of this section, the authority shall be entitled to recover the cost of publication from the applicant.
      (4) A river purification authority shall be entitled to disregard the provisions of subsection (1) of this section in relation to an application (except so much of paragraph (b) of that subsection as requires copies of the application to be sent to the Secretary of State) if the authority proposes to give consent in pursuance of the application and considers that the discharges in question will have no appreciable effect on the water into which they are proposed to be made.
      (5) The preceding provisions of this section shall have effect with prescribed modifications in relation to an application which is the subject of a direction in pursuance of subsection (1) of the preceding section.
      (6) Where a river purification authority proposes to give consent in pursuance of section 34 of this Act in consequence of an application in respect of which representations have been made in pursuance of subsection (1)(c) of this section then—

      (a) it shall be the duty of the authority to serve notice of the proposal on the person who made the representations and to include in the notice a statement of the effect of the following paragraph; and

      53

      (b) that person may, within the period of twenty-one days beginning with the day on which the notice of the proposal is served on him, request the Secretary of State in accordance with regulations to give a direction in pursuance of subsection (1) of the preceding section in respect of the application; and

      (c) it shall be the duty of the authority not to give consent in consequence of the application before the expiration of that period and, if within that period the said person makes a request in pursuance of the preceding paragraph and serves notice of the request on the authority, not to give consent in pursuance of the application unless the Secretary of State has given notice to the authority that he declines to comply with the request;

      and in calculating in the case of any application the period of three months mentioned in section 34(2) of this Act or a longer period there mentioned there shall be disregarded any period during which the authority to which the application was made is prohibited by virtue of paragraph (c) of this subsection from giving consent in consequence of the application.
      (7) A consent for any discharges which is given in pursuance of section 34 of this Act is not limited to discharges by a particular person and accordingly extends to the discharges in question which are made by any person.
      Revocation of consents and alteration and imposition of conditions.
      37.—(1) It shall be the duty of a river purification authority by which a consent is given in pursuance of section 34 of this Act to review from time to time the consent and the conditions, if any, to which the consent is subject; and subject to the following section the authority may, by a notice served on the person making a discharge in pursuence of the consent, revoke the consent if it is reasonable to do so or make reasonable modifications of the said conditions or, in the case of an unconditional consent, provide that it shall be subject to reasonable conditions specified in the notice.
      (2) Subject to the following section, the Secretary of State may—

      (a) for the purpose of enabling Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to give effect to any Community obligation or to any international agreement to which the United Kingdom is for the time being a party;

      (b) for the protection of public health or of flora and fauna dependent on an aquatic environment; or

      (c) in consequence of any representations made to him or otherwise,

      direct a river purification authority to serve a notice in pursuance of the preceding subsection containing such provisions as are specified in the direction and it shall be the duty of the authority to comply with the direction; and if the authority fails to serve the notice within such period as the Secretary of State may allow he may serve the notice on behalf of the authority, and it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this Part of the Act a notice served on behalf of an authority by virtue of this subsection is served by the authority.
      Restriction on variation and revocation of consent and of previous variation
      38.—(1) Each instrument signifying the consent of a river purification authority in pursuance of section 34 of this Act shall specify a period during which no notice in pursuance of subsection (1) or (2)(c) of the preceding section is to be served in respect of the consent without the written agreement of a person making a discharge in pursuance of the consent; and the said period shall be a reasonable period of not less than two years beginning with the day on which the consent takes effect.
      (2) Each notice served by a river purification authority in pursuance of subsection (1) or (2)(c) of the preceding section (except a notice which only revokes a consent or conditions) shall specify a period during which a subsequent notice in pursuance of that subsection which alters the effect of the first-mentioned notice is not to be served without the written agreement of a person making a discharge in pursuance of the consent to which the first-mentioned notice relates; and the
      54
      said period shall be a reasonable period of not less than two years beginning with the day on which the first-mentioned notice is served.
      (3) The authority shall be liable to pay compensation to any person in respect of any loss or damage sustained by that person as a result of the authority's compliance with a direction given in relation to any consent by virtue of section 37(2)(b) of this Act if—

      (a) in complying with that direction the authority does anything which, apart from that direction, it would be precluded from doing by a restriction imposed under subsection (1) or (2) above; and

      (b) the direction is not shown to have been in consequence of—

      (i) a change of circumstances which could not reasonably have been foreseen at t he beginning of the period to which the restriction relates; or

      (ii) consideration by the Secretary of State of material information which was not reasonably available to the authority at the beginning of that period;

      and in this paragraph information is material, in relation to a consent, if it relates to any discharge made or to be made by virtue of the consent, to the interaction of any such discharge with any other discharge or to the combined effect of the matter discharged and any other matter.

      (4) A restriction imposed under subsection (1) or (2) of this section shall not prevent the service by the authority of a notice by virtue of section 37(1) or (2)(c) of this Act in respect of a consent given under section 34(3) of this Act if—

      (a) the notice is served not more than three months after the beginning of the period specified in section 36(1)(c) of this Act for the making of representations with respect to the consent; and

      (b) the authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State considers, in consequence of any representations received by it or him within that period, that it is appropriate for the notice to be served.

      39.—(1) Any questions as to whether—

      (a) a river purification authority has unreasonably withheld its consent in pursuance of section 31(3) or 34 of this Act or regulations made by virtue of section 31(4) of this Act or has given its consent in pursuance of the said section 34 or such regulations subject to conditions which are unreasonable; or

      (b) a notice served in pursuance of section 37(1) of this Act contains terms (other than a term required by subsection (2) of the preceding section) which are unreasonable; or

      (c) the period specified in any instrument or notice in pursuance of subsection (1) or (2) of the preceding section is unreasonable,

      shall be determined for the purposes of this Part of this Act by the Secretary of State: but no question relating to a determination of the Secretary of State in pursuance of section 35(4) of this Act shall be referred to him in pursuance of this subsection and any such determination shall be final.
      (2) Provision may be made by regulations as to the manner in which and the time within which a question may be referred or a request may be made in pursuance of the preceding provisions of this section and as to the procedure for dealing with such a reference or request.
      (3) In any case where—

      (a) a question as to whether a river purification authority has unreasonably withheld its consent in pursance of section 34 of this Act, or has given its consent in pursuance of that section subject to conditions which are unreasonable, is referred to the Secretary of State in pursuance of this section; and

      (b) representations relating to the application for the consent in question were made to the authority in pursuance of section 36(1)(c) of this Act,

      it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, before he determines the question, to secure that the authority has served notice of the reference on the persons who made the representations and to take account of any further written representations relating to the application which are received by him from those persons within a prescribed period.
      (4) Where a question is referred to the Secretary of State in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section and he determines that the consent in question was unreasonably withheld or that the conditions or terms or period in question are or is unreasonable, he shall give to the relevant river purification authority such a direction as he thinks fit with regard to the consent, conditions, terms or period and it shall be the duty of the authority to comply with the direction.
      (5) the withholding by a river purification authority of such a consent as it is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section, the conditions subject to which such a consent is given and such terms and period as are so mentioned shall be treated as reasonable for the purposes of this Part of this Act until the contrary is determined in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section except that where a question as to the reasonableness of the conditions of a consent given in pursuance of regulations made by virtue of section 31(4) of this Act is referred to the Secretary of State in pursuance of this section the consent shall be treated for those purposes as unconditional while the reference is pending.
      (6) At any stage of the proceedings on a reference to the Secretary of State in pursuance of this section he may, and shall if so directed by the Court of Session, state in the form of a special case for the decision of the court any question of law arising in those proceedings.
      Transitional provisions relating to consents
      40.—(1) Regulations may provide—

      (a) for any consent for discharges which was given in pursuance of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Acts 1951 and 1965 to have effect for any of the purposes of this Part of this Act as if given in pursuance of prescribed provisions of section 34 of this Act; and

      (b) for any conditions to which such a consent was subject in pursuance of any of those enactments to have effect for any of those purposes as if attached to the consent in pursuance of prescribed provisions of this Part of this Act.

      (2) Regulations may provide for the terms of a consent for an outlet which was given in pursuance of the rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act 1951 and for conditions to which such a consent was subject in pursuance of that Act or which were imposed with respect to the outlet in pursuance of section 28(4) of that Act—

      (a) to have effect, with or without modifications, for any of the purposes of this Part of this Act as if the terms or conditions were conditions attached to a consent given in pursuance of section 34 of this Act for discharges from the outlet; or

      (b) to be treated, with or without modifications, for any of those purposes in such other manner as may be prescribed.

      (3) An application for such a consent as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section which is pending immediately before the relevant day shall be treated on and after that day as an application for consent in pursuance of section 34 of this Act which was made on the day on which it was actually made.
      (4) Where an application for consent in pursuance of section 34 of this Act in respect of any discharge is duly made to a river purification authority before the relevant day and the discharge in question is not such as is mentioned in section 32(3)(a) of this Act and is substantially a continuation of a previous discharge which during the year ending with the 30th April 1974 was lawfully made without such consent as is so mentioned (any reduction of the temperature, volume or rate of the discharge as compared with that of the previous discharge being disregarded), the authority shall be deemed to have given unconditionally the consent applied for—

      (a) until the authority actually gives the consent unconditionally; or

      (b) if the authority decides to refuse consent or to give it subject to conditions, until the expiration of the period of three months beginning with the date when the authority serves on the applicant notice of the decision; or

      (c) if during that period the applicant appeals to the Secretary of State against the decision in pursuance of the preceding section, until the determination of the appeal.

      (5) Regulations may provide for any appeal which immediately before the relevant day is pending in pursuance of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Acts 1951 and 1965 to be treated on and after that day as an appeal in pursuance of prescribed provisions of this Part of the Act.
      (6) In this section "the relevant day" means the day when section 32(1) of this Act comes into force.
      Ancillary provisions relating to control of discharges Registers
      41.—(1) It shall be the duty of river purification authorities to maintain in accordance with regulations, registers containing prescribed particulars of—

      (a) any notices of water quality objectives or other notices served under section 30C above;

      (b) applications for consents—

      (i) made to the authorities in pursuance of this part of this Act;

      (ii) sent to the Secretary of State in pursuance of section 34 of this Act (as modified by regulations made under section 55 of this Act);

      (c) consents given in pursuance of any provision of this Part of this Act (except section 40(4)) and the conditions to which the consents are subject;

      (d) samples—

      (i) of effluent taken by the authorities in pursuance of section 19 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act 1951;

      (ii) of effluent taken by islands councils from discharges made by them in their own areas for the purposes of their functions relating to the pollution of controlled waters; and

      (iii) of water taken by the authorities;

      and information produced by analyses of the samples and the steps taken in consequence of the information;

      (e) certificates issued in pursuance of the following section.

      (2) It shall be the duty of a river purification authority—

      (a) to secure that registers maintained by the authority in pursuance of the preceding subsection are, after such date as is prescribed with respect to the registers, open to inspection by the public free of charge at all reasonable hours; and

      (b) to afford members of the public reasonable facilities for obtaining from the authority, on payment of reasonable charges, copies of entries in the register.

      Power of Secretary of State to exempt applications, consents and conditions etc. from publicity.
      42.—(1) If a person who proposes to make or has made an application to a river purification authority for any consent in pursuance of section 34 of this Act (hereafter in this subjection refered to as "the relevant application")—

      (a) applies to the Secretary of State within a prescribed period for a certificate providing that section 36(1) of this Act and paragraphs (b) to (d) of subsection (1) of the preceding section shall not apply to the relevant application or to any consent given or conditions imposed in consequence of the relevant application or to any sample of effluent taken from a discharge for which consent is given in consequence of the relevant application or to information produced by analysis of such a sample; and

      (b) satisfies the Secretary of State that it would—

      (i) prejudice to an unreasonable degree some private interest by disclosing information about a trade secret, or

      (ii) be contrary to the public interest,

      if a certificate were not issued in pursuance of his application to the Secretary of State.

      the Secretary of State may issue a certificate to that person providing that section 36(1) of this Act and those paragraphs shall not apply to such of the things mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection as are specified in the certificate.
      (2) If a person who is making or propose to make a discharge which is the subject of a consent given in pursuance of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Acts 1951 and 1965—

      57

      (a) applies to the Secretary of State for a certificate providing section shall not apply to the consent or any conditions to which the consent is subject or any sample of effluent taken from a discharge to which the consent relates or any information produced by analysis of such a sample; and

      (b) satisfied the Secretary of State as mentioned in paragraph (c) of the preceding subsection,

      the Secretary of State may issue a certificate to that person providing that the said subsection (1)(c) or (d) shall not apply to such of the things mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection as are specified in the certificate.".
      5. For sections 46 to 51 there shall be substituted the following sections—
      "Operations by water authorities to remedy or forestall pollution of water.
      46.—(1) Where it appears to a river purification authority that any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter or any solid waste matter is likely to enter, or is or was present in, any controlled waters in its area, the authority may carry out in its area or elsewhere such operations as it considers appropriate—

      (a) in a case where the matter appears likely to enter such waters, for the purpose of preventing it from doing so; and

      (b) in a case where the matter appears to be or to have been present in such waters, for the purpose of removing or disposing of the matter or of remedying or mitigating any pollution caused by its presence in the waters or of restoring the waters (including the fauna and flora dependent on the aquatic environment of the waters), so far as it is reasonably practicable to do so, to the state in which they were immediately before the matter became present in the waters;

      but nothing in this subsection empowers a river purification authority to impede or prevent the making of any discharge in pursuance of a consent given by any authority by virtue of section 34 of this Act.
      (2) Where a river purification authority carries out any operations in pursuance of this section the authority shall, subject to the following subsection, be entitled to recover the costs of doing so from any persons who caused or knowingly permitted the matter in question to be present at the place from which it was likely in the opinion of the authority to enter the controlled waters or, as the case may be, to be present in the controlled waters.
      (3) No such costs shall be payable by a person—

      (a) in so far as he satisfies the court in which it is sought to recover the costs that the costs were incurred unnecessarily; or

      (b) for any operations in respect of water from an abandoned mine which that person permitted to reach such a place as is mentioned in the preceding subsection or to enter the controlled waters.

      (4) In determining the damage which a person has suffered in consequence of pollution in respect of which operations have been or may be carried out in pursuance of this section, account shall be taken of the extent to which it is shown that the damage has been reduced by operations in pursuance of this section and of the extent to which it is shown that the damage is likely to be so reduced.
      Duty of authorities to deal with waste from vessels etc.
      47.—(1) It shall be the duty of each river purification authority—

      (a) to arrange for the collection and disposal of waste from vessels in its area which appears to the authority to need collection in consequence of section 33 of this Act; and

      (b) to arrange for the provision of facilities for the washing out of prescribed appliances from vessels in its area.

      (2) A river purification authority may arrange for the provision of facilities by way of water closets, urinals and wash basins for the use of persons from vessels in the authority's area.
      (3) A port local authority constituted under Part X of the Public Health (Scotland) Act 1897 shall have power to make arrangements with a river purification authority for the purposes of any of the preceding provisions of this section.
      Power of river purification authorities to exclude unregistered vessels from rivers etc.
      48.—(1) Where it appears to a river purification authority to be appropriate to do so for the purpose of preventing the pollution of inland waters in its area, the authority may make byelaws providing that vessels shall not be on any such waters which are specified in the byelaws unless the vessels are registered by the authority in accordance with the byelaws or are exempted by the byelaws from registration; and a person who causes or knowingly permits a vessel to be on inland waters in contravention of byelaws made by virtue of this subsection shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or such smaller sum as may be specified in the byelaws.
      (2) Byelaws made by a river purification authority in pursuance of the preceding subsection may authorise the authority to make reasonable charges in respect of the registration of vessels in pursuance of the byelaws; and no charges shall be payable, by persons in or from vessels registered by the authority in pursuance of the byelaws, in respect of the use by those persons of facilities provided in pursuance of the preceding section by or by arrangement with the authority.
      Deposits and vegetation in rivers etc.
      49.—(1) If without the consent of the relevant river purification authority, which shall not be unreasonably withheld,—

      (a) a person removes from any part of the bottom, channel or bed of any inland waters a deposit accumulated by reason of any dam, weir or sluice holding back the waters and does so by causing the deposit to be carried away in suspension in the waters; or

      (b) any substantial amount of vegetation cut or uprooted in any inland waters, or so near to any such waters that it falls into it, is allowed to remain in the waters by the wilful default of any person,

      then, subject to the following subsection, that person shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
      (2) Nothing in paragraph (a) of the preceding subsection applies to anything done in the exercise of statutory powers conferred by or under any enactment relating to land drainage, flood prevention or navigation.
      (3) Regulations may provide that any reference to inland waters in subsection (1) of this section shall be construed as including a reference to such coastal waters as are prescribed for the purposes of that subsection.
      (4) Any question as to whether the consent of a river purification authority in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section is unreasonably withheld shall be determined by the Secretary of State; and any consent given in pursuance of section 24 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act 1951 (which is superseded by this section) shall be treated for the purposes of this section as given in pursuance of this section.
      Investigation of water pollution problems arising from closure of mines
      50. Each river purification authority shall have power to carry out studies for the purposes of ascertaining—

      (a) what problems relating to the pollution of controlled waters may arise or have arisen in consequence of the abandonment of any mine in its area or might arise if any such mine were abandoned; and

      (b) what steps are likely to be appropriate for the purpose of dealing with the problems and what the cost of taking those steps would be.

      Codes of good agricultural practice
      51.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument approve any code of practice issued (whether by him or by another person) for the purpose of—

      (a) giving practical guidance to persons engaged in agriculture with respect to activities that may affect controlled waters; and

      (b) promoting what appear to him to be desirable practices by such persons for avoiding or minimising the pollution of any such waters,

      59
      and may at any time by such an order approve a modification of such a code or withdraw his approval of such a code or modification.
      (2) A contravention of a code of practice for the time being approved under this section shall not of itself give rise to any criminal or civil liability, but a river purification authority shall take into account whether there has been or is likely to be any such contravention in determining when and how it should exercise any powers conferred on it by regulations under section 31A of this Act.
      (3) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under this section unless he has first consulted the river purification authorities.".
      6. For sections 53 to 56 there shall be substituted the following sections—
      "Charges in respect of certain discharges
      53.—(1) Where—

      (a) an application is made to a river purification authority for a consent for the purposes of sections 31(3), 32 or 49 of this Act of for the modification of, or of the conditions of, any such consent;

      (b) the authority gives a consent under section 34(3) of this Act or a consent for the purposes of section 31(3) or 49 of this Act; or

      (c) a consent for the purposes of sections 31(3), 32 or 49 of this Act is for the time being in force,

      the authority may require the payment to it of such charges as may be specified in or determined under a scheme made by it under this section.
      (2) The persons who shall be liable to pay charges which are required to be paid by virtue of a scheme under this section shall be—

      (a) in the case of a charge by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above, the person who makes the application;

      (b) in the case of a charge by virtue of subsection (1)(b) above, any person who is authorised to do anything by virtue of the consent and on whom the instrument giving the consent is served; and

      (c) in the case of a charge by virtue of subsection (1)(c) above, any person who makes a discharge in pursuance of the consent at any time during the period to which, in accordance with the scheme, the charge relates;

      and provision made by a scheme for the purposes of paragraph (c) above may impose a single charge in respect of the whole period for which the consent is in force or separate charges in respect of different parts of that period or both such a single charge and such separate chages.
      (3) An authority shall not make a scheme under this section unless its provisions have been approved by the Secretary of State; and the consent of the Treasury shall be required for the giving of such an approval.
      (4) Before submitting a scheme under this section to the Secretary of State for his approval an authority shall, in such manner as it considers appropriate for bringing it to the attention of persons likely to be affected by it, publish a notice setting out its proposals and specifying the period within which representations with respect to the proposals may be made to the Secretary of State.
      (5) Where any proposed scheme has been submitted to the Secretary of State for his approval, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, in determining whether or not to approve the scheme or to approve it subject to modifications—

      (a) to consider any representations duly made to him; and

      (b) to have regard to the matters specified in subsection (6) below.

      (6) The matters mentioned in subsection (5)(b) above are—

      (a) the need to ensure that the amount recovered by the authority by way of charges fixed by or under schemes under this section does not exceed, taking one year with another, such amount as appears to the Secretary of State to be reasonably attributable to the expenses incurred by the authority in carrying out its functions under sections 34 to 38 and 49 of this Act and otherwise in relation to discharges into controlled waters; and

      (b) the need to ensure that no undue preference is shown, and that there is no undue discrimination, in the fixing of charges by or under the scheme.

      (7) A scheme under this section may—

      (a) make provision with respect to the times and methods of payment of the charges which are required to be paid by virtue of the scheme;

      (b) make different provision for different cases, including different provision in relation to different persons, circumstances or localities; and

      (c) contain supplemental, consequential and transitional provision for the purposes of the scheme;

      and such a scheme may revoke or amend a previous scheme under this section.
      (8) It shall be the duty of a river purification authority to take such steps as it considers appropriate for bringing the provisions of any scheme under this section which is for the time being in force to the attention of persons likely to be affected by them.
      Directions to the river purification authority
      54.—(1) Directions of a general or specific character may be given to each river purification authority by the Secretary of State with respect to the carrying out of its functions and it shall be the duty of each river purification authority to comply with any such direction.
      (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred by subsection (1) of this section, directions under that subsection may include such directions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in order to enable Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to give effect to—

      (a) any Community obligations; or

      (b) any international agreement to which the United Kingdom is for the time being a party.

      (3) Any power of the Secretary of State otherwise than by virtue of this section to give direction to a river purification authority shall be without prejudice to the power conferred by this section.
      Supplemental Discharges by islands councils
      55.—(1) This part of this Act shall have effect with prescribed modifications in relation to discharges by an islands council in its area.
      (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers to make regulation conferred by the preceding subsection, any regulations made in pursuance of that subsection may provide for consents required by islands councils for the purposes of this Part of this Act as modified by virtue of that subsection to be or be deemed to be given by the Secretary of State.
      Interpretation etc. of Part II
      56.—Except where the context otherwise requires, in this Part of this Act—

      "agriculture" and "agricultural" have the same meanings as in the Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948;

      "coastal waters", "controlled waters", "ground waters", "inland waters" and "relevant territorial waters" have the meanings given by section 30A(1) above;

      "effluent" means any liquid, including particles of matter and other substances in suspension in the liquid;

      "sewage effluent" includes any effluent from the sewage disposal or sewerage works of a local authority within the meaning of the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968;

      "trade effluent" includes any effluent which is discharged from premises used for carrying on any trade or industry, other than surface water and domestic sewage;

      "underground strata" means strata subjacent to the surface of any land;

      "water authority" means an authority established in accordance with section 3 of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980;

      "watercourse" includes all rivers, streams, ditches, drains, cuts, culverts, dykes, sluices, sewers, and passages through which water flows except mains and other pipes which belong to the water authority or are used by a water authority or any other person for the purposes only of providing a supply of water to any premises.

      (2) In this Part of this Act—

      61

      (a) any reference to the waters of any loch or pond or of any river or watercourse includes a reference to the bottom, channel or bed of any loch, pond, river or, as the case may be, watercourse which is for the time being dry; and

      (b) any reference to water contained in underground strata is a reference to water so contained otherwise than in a sewer, pipe, reservoir, tank or other underground works constructed in any such strata.

      (3) For the purposes of the definition of "trade effluent" in subsection (1) above any premises (whether on land or not) wholly or mainly used (whether for profit or not) for agricultural purposes or for the purposes of fish farming or for scientific research or experiment shall be deemed to be premises used for carrying on a trade.
      (4) For the purposes of this Part of this Act the area of a river purification authority shall include all controlled waters off the coast of the area which is the authority's area apart from this subsection; and any question as to whether any place is included in the area of a river purification authority by virtue of this subsection shall be determined by the Secretary of State.
      (5) For the purposes of this Part of this Act a notice imposing conditions with respect to discharges which was given by a river purification authority in pursuance of—

      (a) section 28(4) of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act 1951; or

      (b) section 1(5) of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act 1965,

      shall be treated as having given the authority's consent in pursuance of the Act in question for those discharges subject to those conditions.
      (6) Section 30(5) of this Act shall have effect in relation to this Part of this Act as if for any reference to Part I of this Act there were substituted a reference to this Part of this Act.
      7. In subsection (1) of section 104 (orders and regulation), for the words "section 33(4), 44(5), 52, 53 or 109(2)" there shall be substituted the words "sections 44(5) and 109(2).". —[Mr. Moynihan.]

    Schedule 1

      THE NATIONAL RIVERS AUTHORITY
      Mr. Moynihan: I beg to move amendment No. 55, in page 186, line 23, after '(1)' insert
      'The Authority shall be entitled to borrow in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph but not otherwise.
      (1A) Subject to sub-paragraph (1C) below'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 56.
      Mr. Moynihan: The amendments set out the circumstances in which it is proposed that the National Rivers Authority will be able to undertake borrowing in relation to its functions. Amendment No. 55 provides that the amount borrowed by the NRA under its temporary borrowing powers, for which paragraph 18 of the schedule already provides, will be subject to the authority's overall borrowing requirement. Amendment No. 56, which is the more significant of the amendments, would give the NRA the ability to undertake long-term borrowing to finance its flood defence functions in certain defined circumstances. It describes the mechanism by which loans would be made to the NRA for that purpose and sets out borrowing limits which would apply.
      During discussion in Committee of the NRA's finances concern was expressed on both sides about the fact that the Bill did not provide for the NRA to have long-term borrowing powers in relation to flood defence work. In particular, concern was expressed in Committee about the
      62
      funding arrangements for flood defence emergencies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) said:
      "Emergencies may arise which occasion emergency action and it is extremely difficult to budget or save for that in advance."[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 17 January 1989; c. 258.]
      We have given careful consideration to the arguments that were put in Committee by my hon. Friends and, indeed, to representations received from those concerned with flood defence arrangements and to the views of the Opposition. While we remain firmly of the view, for reasons that I explained at length in Committee, that it is not necessary for the NRA to have long-term borrowing powers to deal with the normal run of flood defence work, we accept the argument that there are some circumstances in which it would be right for the NRA to have such powers.
      Accordingly, amendment No. 56 provides the NRA with borrowing powers for use when it is faced with heavy expenditure for which it had been impossible to plan. We therefore do not expect that they will need to be used very often. Long-term borrowing under these powers would require the consent, as appropriate, of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, together with the approval of the Treasury. We intend that the use of these powers shall be limited to circumstances in which works are urgently needed to avoid the risk of serious flooding, and the flood defence committee cannot defer other planned work to provide the necessary finance.
      Mr. Pike: This is an important amendment and, as the Minister said, the subject evoked much concern in Committee. Can he tell us how the £160 million limit was arrived at and what would happen if at some subsequent date the figure proved insufficient? Could it then be changed?
      Mr. Moynihan: It is a figure which, after detailed consideration with the water authorities, we felt was a wise, indeed generous, one to cover such unexpected expenditure. There is no doubt that in the event of an appalling tragedy that required substantial expenditure we would need to come to the House anyway. The hon. Gentleman will recall that that matter was argued in Committee. If I recall rightly, one of the examples aired was of an extensive flood in East Anglia and the possibility of substantial expenditure being required. Clearly, that would require parliamentary approval either under the usual procedure or under an emergency procedure.
      We think that after lengthy discussions the figures arrived at in the proposal are generous. I am sure that hon. Members recognise that long-term borrowing powers should more than adequately cover the points made by hon. Members when, often vociferously but mainly in a quiet and gentle manner, they expressed their concern about the arrangements for funding flood emergencies. I am confident that the amendments fully meet that concern, and that, with the addition of these powers, the National Rivers Authority will have the full range of powers that it needs to respond to any future flooding emergencies. They will ensure that flood defence committees will be able to carry out their vital work as effectively as they have carried it out in the past. They also provide a clear demonstration that we are determined to give the NRA all the powers that it needs to operate effectively.
      Mr. Allan Roberts: The Minister was right to say that the amendments are important. The Government recognised the strength of the case made by Opposition and Conservative Members in Committee when we debated the National Rivers Authority. The main amendment, No. 56, would allow the National Rivers Authority to borrow other than by way of a temporary loan from the Secretary of State or from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food money for capital purposes in connection with flood defence. The amendments set up a system for such spending to be subject to review by the Comptroller and Auditor General and for reports and accounts to be laid before Parliament. We do not object to any of those things, but there are certain items missing from the amendments and the Opposition think that such items should have been included to take the amendments further and to provide for a much more comprehensive system of borrowing powers and freedom to borrow for the National Rivers Authority.
      The borrowing is related only to the carrying out of flood defence functions and not to the environmental works that will be the responsibility of the National Rivers Authority and with which I shall shortly deal. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has said, sub-paragraph (1C) of amendment No. 56 limits the amount outstanding on the aggregate of loans to the NRA to
      "£100 million or such greater sum, not exceeding £160 million, as the relevant Ministers may specify by order"
      which is subject to affirmative resolution. It would be helpful to know the basis for these broad figures. The Minister touched on that, but I do not think that his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley was wholly satisfactory. Will the Government guarantee that all flood defence work likely to be considered desirable by the National Rivers Authority will fall within these limits? What provision will be made for updating the figures against inflation?
      The fixing of a ceiling in primary legislation effectively constrains the developments in the capital programme of the National Rivers Authority even in the face of unforeseen requirements. Throughout the progress of the Bill when it was a matter of conforming to EC and environmental standards and of imposing controls that benefit the consumer, the Government left everything subject to the Secretary of State for the Environment who can determine the levels, the figures, the dates, the times and the expenditure as he sees fit. However, when it is a matter of setting expenditure and borrowing levels in the public sector the actual figures have been put down in the Bill by way of amendment and it will be difficult to get them changed. We should like to hear more about that.
      The Government's proposals are inadequate in the light of the functions of the National Rivers Authority. We are concerned about how the authority will function and how it will be able to carry out the jobs now done by the water authorities that are being handed over to the NRA. Lord Crickhowell, who will be the chairman of the National Rivers Authority, said:
      "Before I leave the subject of charges, I think I should make it absolutely clear that I see it as one of the priority objectives of the new National Rivers Authority to operate a slim, efficient, cost-conscious organisation. The National Rivers Authority will start with a problem. They will inherit existing structures, obligations and commitments to staff. These commitments must be honoured but clearly, as soon as
      64
      it is in being, it will need to undertake a thorough review of what resources it needs to retain inhouse and what services it might over an appropriate time scale buy in from outside contractors."
      We are concerned that if the National Rivers Authority is prevented from borrowing the money that it needs to do all the jobs and tasks that it is being given, and not just flood protection and defences, there will be much outside contracting. There will be an inadequate, slimmed-down authority, that has not got the resources, and will not have the borrowing power, to get on with the job that the majority of hon. Members want it to do.
      The functions of the National Rivers Authority include water resource planning, licensing of abstraction and the monitoring of licences; there are no borrowing powers for those. Then there is environmental quality and pollution control. Perhaps the Government do not want the NRA to do effective work on environmental quality and pollution control lest it might deter people from buying into the private companies at the time of flotation. There are no borrowing for those functions. Nor are there borrowing powers for the maintenance, improvement and development of fisheries in inland waters, for conservation and recreation, or for the navigation responsibilities of three water authorities. Nor are there borrowing powers for some of the functions of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution that are being passed to the National Rivers Authority, or for research.
      I have left to the end the question of sea defences. Sea defences and flood defences are similar. Why should sea defences be excluded and flood defences included? That is difficult to understand, especially as the funding for both is similar at the moment, in that the water authorities precept on the local authorities in the areas concerned, and the money eventually comes from rates. Perhaps the Government do not want to give borrowing powers for all the environmental activities that the National Rivers Authority will have to deal with, because they do not want rigorous enforcement imposed on a privatised industry. Perhaps the exclusion of sea defences was an oversight by the Government and they should have been included in the amendments.
      The National Rivers Authority will be the only national body engaged in environmental control and monitoring water pollution, yet it is to be given only limited borrowing powers for just one of its functions. Of course, borrowing powers are not much good if the Department of the Environment via the Treasury, or the Treasury via the Department of the Environment, prevents the borrowing because the National Rivers Authority is in the public sector and the borrowing cannot go ahead because of public sector borrowing requirement restrictions, something that the Government have claimed they are getting away from by privatising the water industry. The only justification of substance that they have found for their privatisation proposal is that the privatised water industry will be free from PSBR restrictions. Of course, the water industry could be free from such restrictions without being privatised, and merely by a political decision of the Government.
      The National Rivers Authority will remain in the public sector. All the environmentally essential functions of the authority will remain in the public sector and are not being freed from PSBR restrictions. The NRA is being emaciated at birth and strangled by lack of power before it even gets going. With the amendments, the Government

      65
      have taken a small, tentative step in the right direction. They should move amendments in the other place, if there is not time now, to include borrowing powers for all the functions of the National Rivers Authority. They should give an undertaking that they will release the authority from PSBR restrictions. That can be done in the public sector. British Nuclear Fuels is in the public sector and it does not suffer PSBR restrictions. That precedent could be followed for the water industry, as it will be when we have a Labour Government and we take it back into social ownership.
      4.45 pm
      We want to know how the borrowing is to be funded. When an organisation borrows it has to pay interest. Is borrowing to be funded by a precept on the local authorities in whose areas the flood defences are situated, or is it to be funded from general taxation? It is ironic that a Conservative Member mentioned comparative competition even in relation to pension schemes. One thing is certain, as is shown by the amendments on borrowing: the legislation will not introduce competition into the supply of water or the treatment and disposal of sewage. Comparative competition is a joke. There will be no competition.
      It is amazing. We have in power a Government who are trying to introduce competition into the sale of beer and at the same time private monopolies into the sale of water. The Government will stand condemned because of the inadequacy of the legislation to protect the environment and their inadequate proposals for the National Rivers Authority which they have heralded as a great environmental step forward.
      Mr. Malcolm Moss: I represent a constituency which must be the most drainage-sensitive area in the United Kingdom, so my constituents are extremely pleased with the Government amendment. I want to take up a point made by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) about flood defence functions. It is my understanding that, under the Land Drainage Act 1976 sea defences and flood protection of sea defences are in the same category as flood protection and land drainage in internal land areas.
      Before the amendment was tabled, there was great concern in the Fens of East Anglia that necessary works might be put back or even deferred indefinitely because of the problems associated with raising finance to do necessary work. The problems arise fundamentally from the need to raise capital to meet emergencies and to do the necessary long-term work. There is an example at the moment at the development stage of Anglian Water for the constituency of Cambridgeshire, Nort-East—the middle and south level barrier banks and Ouse washes scheme. That work is being undertaken by the Great Ouse local land drainage committee. The scheme will cost about £20 million. The main elements will be constructed over a four year period, with expenditure of about £5 million per annum. That compares with the normal expenditure of the committee of an average of £3 million each year, so a colossal increase in expenditure is required.
      The Ouse washes scheme is a repair of the magnificent drainage channels constructed by the Dutchman Vermuyden, in the 17th century. They have lasted well from that date, but they are in need of repair. Some seepage is taking place into surrounding farmland which
      66
      hon. Members will be interested to know is 10 to 12 ft below the water level in the channels. Therefore, it is vital that the necessary remedial work is done on the banks.
      If the Government had not come forward with the amendment, there would have been serious implications for the local community in raising the necessary finance. Normally such capital projects are financed by a precept on the county council rate. Under normal circumstances, without the amendment, the increase would have been 34·7 per cent. from 1 April this year. Without the borrowing powers, a further 40 per cent. increase would have been necessary during the period of construction. The effect of the precepts on the internal drainage boards is even more dramatic, because the impact falls on the boards which benefit from the schemes instead of being spread over a much larger area. Increases of up to 90 per cent. would have applied from 1 April this year and further increases of up to 80 per cent. during the period of a scheme's expenditure.
      It is obvious that my constituents who pay county council rates and those in the vicinity of the Ouse-Wash banks who pay the necessary drainage rates to their local internal drainage boards are delighted with the Government's amendment. They believe that the amount specified in the amendment of up to £160 million will more than cover the needs of Cambridgeshire and the Fens to the end of this century and beyond. That money also includes provision for considerable flood protection work necessary on the east coast, particularly at Aldeburgh and further north in Norfolk.
      The Government have listened carefully to representations from the farming community, from landowners and from my constituents. I know that representations have also been made by many of my hon. Friends and I am grateful to the Government for listening carefully to there and for producing the necessary amendment.
      Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am pleased to welcome the amendment. As hon. Members have said, there was pressure in Standing Committee about this point. I was involved in those debates in Standing Committee because of the implications of this part of the Bill for my constituency, which suffers in many ways from problems of flooding.
      The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) raised a point which the Minister must clarify. I had assumed that the amendment would cover the effects from the sea. The Minister would help us if he could confirm that when he replies. If the amendment covers flooding from rivers but not from the sea, there will be a ridiculous situation in some estuarial waters where water enters the area during storms from the sea and the river. In that situation there would have to be a demarcation between which water has caused what damage. There would also be questions about the necessary investment to repair that damage. The Glaslyn estuary near Porthmadog in my constituency has a cob which acts as the sea defence works. However, much of the flooding in that area is caused by water from Snowdonia moving down the river. The Minister may be aware of that example and he must consider it when he replies.
      The amendment is welcome as far as it goes. It is unnecessary to build into the Bill the requirement for an amendment to primary legislation if in due course there needs to be a figure over and above £160 million. I cannot see the need for that.

      67
      An order before the House would be sufficient to raise the figure to the required level. If an order is to be brought before the House, the Government must introduce it and it must have the support of both Chambers. That must surely be sufficient sanction without the need to build in an amendment to primary legislation. I do not see the need for such rigidity in the Bill.
      Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman is making a valid point. When we consider the approvals which must be secured from Ministers and Treasury, it is nonsense for the limit of £160 million to be included in the Bill, when Ministers must be convinced that that limit must be achieved. We must be able to achieve this more easily.
      Mr. Wigley: Exactly. Perhaps the Government will consider whether this part of the Bill can be further amended in another place.
      When the Minister responds, will he clarify the Department's responsibilities in Wales even when, at this late stage, the Bill is dripping its way to another place for further consideration?
      Schedule 1 refers to
      "the Secretary of State and the Minister".
      In Wales the Secretary of State and the Minister are the same person. Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State for Wales will have responsibility for the whole of Wales, or does he have responsibility only for that part of Wales covered by the regional division of the NRA which is located in Wales? It would be helpful for the people outside this place who must work with this legislation if that point can be clarified. It is not entirely clear now.
      Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend the Minister has already referred to the modest part that I played in Standing Committee on this subject. Those hon. Members who served on the Committee will be aware that I made two speeches about this topic. I introduced an amendment and replied to it at some length. Having expressed my feelings rather strongly in Committee, it would be churlish of me if I did not immediately thank the Government for meeting my substantial concerns which reflected the concerns of many people who have the interests of land drainage at heart by introducing this amendment today.
      Although it is inevitable that the Opposition must oppose, they were less than gracious in their welcome for the amendment and in the way in which they sought to use the amendment as a lever to move to further sunlit uplands of unlimited and extravagant Government expenditure.
      We remember the economic doctrines espoused by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) who must not be confused with the distinguished economist, Mr. Roger Bootle. The doctrine espoused by the hon. Member for Bootle was one of limitless Government expenditure, unbridled borrowing and the inevitable consequences. I can understand why the Government have seen fit to impose certain restrictions on the NRA's borrowing powers, even within the concessions that they have announced today.
      Those of us with any experience of working in a Government Department and dealing with the Treasury must fully understand the difficulties of making a case for public spending and the absolutely essential role of the
      68
      Treasury as the thin red line to curtail spending. I believe that the Government have probably got the balance about right in this amendment.
      The Opposition expressed particular concern about the sum involved. It is significant that a sum of up to £160 million is not far away from one year's expenditure on land drainage by the existing water authorities. That is a generous and appropriate allocation.
      The Opposition also question whether the amendment's scope should be extended beyond the emergency requirements of land drainage. At this stage I believe that that is not necessary. The hon. Member for Bootle did not make the point clearly enough that the bulk of NRA funding will come from grant aid which will be considered by the Treasury and debated in the estimates in this House. That is the proper way to run Government expenditure. I will not complain if the Government have not given us the whole loaf, when they have given us nine tenths of it.
      I hope that the Government will pause and consider whether it would be better, as the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) suggested, to introduce an order-making power for flexibility. The last thing that Ministers want is to introduce primary legislation.
      If the limit of £160 million needed to be breached for good reason, the last thing that they would want is a separate Bill. They would have to wait to tack the measure on to another Bill and there would be an unnecessary delay. The Government's readiness to listen to our arguments in Committee and their readiness to resist any mechanism which might add to delay, has caused them to introduce this amendment today. Let us have the right figure and the right mechanism to increase that figure if that is necessary in future.
      5 pm
      Mr. Livsey: One of the things one must welcome is that this amendment involves flood defences but, of course, flood defences only. One can just about remember crises as far back as 1953, when there was immense flooding on the east coast. The £168 million ceiling may be adequate in some senses, particularly perhaps in Cambridgeshire, but may not be adequate to cover the whole of England and Wales. That problem may need to be addressed in future. Will the Minister tell us whether this figure will be indexed over the years, or, indeed, as the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) just mentioned, whether there is at least a possibility of bringing in an order to update such a figure for future expenditure? The fact remains that this involves cash limits by the Treasury on the NRA.
      A lot has been said by the Government during the course of the Bill about the gamekeeper-poacher aspect of the Bill. Effectively, this places restrictions on the gamekeeper, and we do not want a toothless environmental protection agency.
      I believe that more flexibility beyond flood defences in the financing of the NRA is needed. Sea defences have already been mentioned, and I am sure the Minister will be clarifying that in his wind-up on these amendments.
      There are extremely important aspects of funding, such as pollution; the environment; fisheries; and indeed, on the River Wyre, which runs through my constituency, navigation. The press release from the Department of the Environment of 15 March on the provisions made in this amendment indicated restrictions on borrowing powers for unplanned expenditure; at least, one could deduce that.

      69
      Really, loan finance is required for all capital expenditure on a planned basis, and I hope that amendments to this effect will be tabled in the other place to enable adequate funding of the NRA. I would like to test the Minister's attitude to capital as far as aspects other than flood defences are concerned, and see whether there is any flexibility in the Government's attitude towards this type of expenditure.
      Mr. Moynihan: On the question of guarantees, the long-term borrowing under this amendment is of course for Government, so there is no question of the Government needing to guarantee it. On the subject of borrowing powers applying to sea defences, the arguments of the hon. Member (Mr. Livsey) were compelling. They are, of course, accurate; it would lead to a number of absurdities if distinction were drawn between sea defences and the problems of flooding from rivers. Sea defences are included.
      Mr. Allan Roberts: It is not clear from the amendment. Will the Minister make sure that it is clear and that it does cover sea defences? If not, will he amend the amendment in the other place?
      Mr. Moynihan: If further clarification of the words I have just spoken from this Dispatch Box is needed, of course we will seek to clarify that in the legislation. If that satisfies the hon. Member, I will move on to the next issue. I confirm that that is definitely the case, but we will look carefully to see whether any further action is required and, if necessary, bring forward proposals in another place.
      As far as the overall funding is concerned, we have said repeatedly that the NRA will be fully funded by Exchequer grant in aid, covering all important areas of work which hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned this evening. Of course, they will also be funded by capital grants for flood defence and land drainage projects, as outlined in the financial memorandum at the front of the Bill. These sources of income will be complemented by the borrowing powers this amendment introduces. As I have said, we believe the limit on borrowing will be adequate for the time being. However, if at any time it needs to be raised, we will have to come back to the House.
      I appreciate the points mentioned by hon. Members on the possibility of a simpler method to enable swift action. We do not anticipate that that will he necessary, but I will respond to hon. Members if I may have time to consider it. I hope that the House will forgive me for not being in a position to give a more comprehensive answer to that specific point this evening, but I give an assurance that, if we feel action is necessary, we will reflect and come back to the House, or possibly to the other place.
      Mr. Allen McKay: Is the Minister saying that, on the advent of the NRA, if it finds that the restrictions interfere with its capital planning programme, it could come back to the Department and the Minister will come back to the House to consider raising the ceiling?
      Mr. Moynihan: That is right. We are very satisfied that £100 million is a generous limit to NRA borrowing. It can be increased over £160 million by order. We cannot conceive that it will need to be increased to that level, but the point the hon. Member makes is valid. At the moment, the limit could be increased over £160 million only by primary legislation.
      70
      I hope I have responded satisfactorily to hon. Members on both sides in saying that if, on reflection, we believe that that is not satisfactory and there could be a simpler way of doing so, we will see if it is workable. Given the very high limits we have looked at, after detailed discussion with the water authorities, we believe that it is accurate.
      An important point was made by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) about the Secretary of State's responsibility in Wales, a point to which I am delighted to try to respond, although I am not sure it will meet with his total approval. Suffice to say that for the moment the Secretary of State for Wales will be responsible for authorising loans applied for by the regional flood defence committee based in the area of Welsh Water. That will be the parameters within which he will work. He will not be authorising loans applied for elsewhere in Wales.
      I am only sorry that I have not had the opportunity, when reflecting on the important points that the hon. Gentleman made, of actually seeing the Glaslyn estuary myself. I have always enjoyed the privilege and pleasure of going to see Wales, not least because the Wye valley is an important area for me, as I was educated in Monmouth. I am more than confident that the NRA is not only sufficiently financed but, with these powers, will be in a strong enough financial position to carry out the work he envisages.
      Mr. Wigley: The point going through my mind was that work in the past has involved local authorities, but local authorities come entirely under the Secretary of State for Wales. The Minister is now saying that the responsibility of the Secretary of State is only in part of Wales, those parts of Wales which come under him for local government purposes, and that those parts which for water purposes come under the Secretary of State for the Environment will in fact come entirely under the Secretary of State for Environment as far as loan permission is concerned. At least we are clear, even if we do not agree.
      Mr. Moynihan: I said in my initial response just now that I was not sure whether the hon. Member would be completely satisfied by my words, but the words I have placed on the record are accurate for the position at present.
      I hope that that has adequately responded to the various points.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 56, in page 186, line 28, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
      '(1B) Subject to sub-paragraph (1C) below, the authority may borrow, otherwise than by way of temporary loan, such sums in sterling from the Secretary of State or the Minister, as it may require for capital purposes in connection with the carrying out of its flood defence functions.
      (1C) The aggregate amount outstanding in respect of the principal of sums borrowed under this paragraph by the Authority shall not at any time exceed £100 million or such greater sum, not exceeding £160 million, as the relevant Ministers may specify by order made by statutory instrument.
      (1D) No order shall be made under sub-paragraph (1C) above unless a draft of the order has been laid before the House of Commons and has been approved by a resolution of that House.
      (1E) In this paragraph "flood defence functions" has the same meaning as in paragraph 16 above.
      Loans to the Authority
      18A.—(1) The Secretary of State and the Minister shall each have power, with the approval of the Treasury, to lend any sums to the Authority which the Authority has power to borrow under paragraph 18(1B) above.
      (2) Any loan made by the Secretary of State or the Minister under this paragraph shall be repaid to him at such times and by such methods, and interest on the loan shall be paid to him at such rates and at such times as the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the Minister may with the approval of the Treasury from time to time determine.
      (3) Any sums required by the Secretary of State or the Minister for making a loan under this paragraph shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament; and any sums received by the Secretary of State or the Minister in pursuance of sub-paragraph (2) above shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
      (4) The Secretary of State and the Minister shall each—

      (a) prepare in respect of each financial year an account of the sums lent by him to the Authority under this paragraph; and

      (b) before the end of September in the following financial year send that account to the Comptroller and Auditor General;

      and the form of the account and the manner of preparing it shall be such as the Treasury may direct.
      (5) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine, certify and report on each account sent to him under this paragraph and shall lay copies of it and of his report before each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Moynihan.]

    Schedule 2

      SCHEMES PROVIDING FOR THE INITIAL TRANSFERS
      Mr. Pike: I beg to move amendment No. 133, in page 190, line 2, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
      This is an important amendment which deals with a different aspect of pensions from that in the first group of amendments, which we welcome because they clarify the position and constitute a change from the proposals on Second Reading and in Committee. However, our amendment deals with an area about which we are not fully satisfied, and unless the Minister is prepared to move further we intend to have a Division on it.
      Earlier the Minister made one or two helpful comments. He described the role of the trustees and said that two trustees would be representatives of members and would be part of the trust's governing body. He said that in some situations all trustees would need to agree before certain action was taken. Those were important and welcome announcements.
      However, we are still not 100 per cent. convinced that once the water industry is privatised its employees will have the mirror image scheme with conditions as good as those to which they are currently entitled. We recognise that the Bill takes care of existing pensioners and safeguards pension rights earned to date. We welcome the progress that has been made in removing any ambiguity or doubt. However, we want to ensure that those working in the industry and those who may come into it will have a pension scheme that is at least as good as the existing one.
      The Minister has said that he is worried about the number of schemes and whether they can be set up and administered in a proper way. Having served in different capacities on two pension funds before entering the House I recognise that this is a complex subject. I was an employee representative on the Philips staff pension fund, a very large fund, and an employer representative on the Lancashire county council superannuation fund.
      The amendment may not be the best way to achieve what we are seeking, but I am sure that the Minister understands the spirit of it and I hope that he will at least
      72
      say that if we do not divide the House the Government will move a little further and ensure that one pension fund is established to cover all employees within the privatised water industry, which will guarantee our objectives. If the Minister promises to bring forward an amendment in the other place, that may be acceptable.
      Our amendment is simple. It changes the word "may" to "shall". However, as we all know, that is an important change. "May" is permissive and means that something may happen. Given the spirit in which the Government have responded today, I accept that that is what they intend, but that does not mean that it will happen. However, if our amendment were agreed to, the position would be clear because it removes all ambiguity. The Minister says that he does not believe that such a statutory requirement should be included in the Bill, while saying that that is the direction in which the Government wish to go. I find it difficult to understand why the Minister should say that, but is not prepared to put it in the Bill. It is a small area of difference.
      On pensions, the difference between us is small and the Government should take the further step that the Opposition, employees in the industry and the trade unions representing them are seeking. It would not be a great step for them to accept the amendment, but it is an important one, and I hope that the Minister will respond positively.
      5.15 pm
      As there is now only a small difference between us on the pensions issue, it would be silly for the Government not to concede this final point. The Government have so many problems with other aspects of the Bill—we shall be debating those on Third Reading—that they should welcome the opportunity to eliminate one problem now. They say that they want the mirror image scheme, so why not put it in the Bill and remove this little problem?
      The Opposition are rightly worried about protecting conditions of employment on privatisation. In the years to come pensions will be a matter of growing concern to many people. Twenty or thirty years ago many people did not regard company pensions as of great importance, but over the years there has been a considerable change of attitude. Pensions now are rightly viewed as an important part of any employment package.
      I have served on the Standing Committees on many other privatisation Bills. Despite ministerial undertakings, pension issues have not been resolved to the satisfaction of employees. I well remember debates on the royal ordnance factories and the arguments about TUPE '81. Protection can be given up to the date of vesting and privatisation, but whatever the Minister says, if it is not in the Bill it is not worth the paper it is printed on. Decisions are not based on what is written in Hansard. If a matter goes to court, it is what is in the Bill that counts. The Minister knows that that is the important difference. He knows that if he wants to see a mirror image scheme he should go a little further and include the word "shall" in the Bill.
      The Minister also knows that if some small pension schemes could not do exactly what the amendment seeks, he could easily say that the Government are prepared to come forward with a better proposal which will deal with the Opposition's points and give the necessary guarantees to the employees.
      All that we are seeking in moving this simple but important amendment is to guarantee that employees

      73
      presently in the industry will have their future pension earnings protected, whether they be my daughters or the sons or daughters of other hon. Members. They should have the safeguard of a pension scheme that is at least as good as the existing scheme.
      If that is what the Minister wants to see, let him accept the amendment or say that the Government will introduce an amendments in another place to give that guarantee. We believe that those working in the industry now and those who enter it in the years ahead are entitled to such protection.
      Whatever the Minister may say or mean today will mean nothing if it is not guaranteed by the Bill which, when it becomes an Act, will be binding. I hope that the Minister will say, even at this late stage, that he is prepared to think again and accept the wisdom of moving in the direction that amendment No. 133 suggests.
      Mr. Allen McKay: While Ministers may give assurances in good faith, there is always the possibility that their successors will go against those assurances. That has happened time and again. Consequently, we always seek, particularly in respect of pension matters, a provision in the Bill that backs a Minister's assurances and provides a positive commitment so that people who have worked in an industry for many years, as well as those who enter it in future, may be sure of an adequate pension.
      I hope that the Minister will look favourably on amendment No. 133. It is not that we disbelieve the Minister or question his intentions, but within a very short time, Ministers change, and successors may view the pension aspect very differently. It is important to workers in the industry to have an assurance that their pension fund is in order and that their pensions are adequately protected. It has been said that workers could withdraw their money and transfer it to a private pension scheme. Unfortunately, private schemes depend on the performance of investments, with the result that the value of their pensions can reduce. Local government and water authority pension schemes do not reduce in value and are index-linked, whereas private schemes are not. By putting his assurances into the legislation, the Minister can ensure that pensions will retain the value that they have today, which is important to those concerned about their financial future.
      I hope that the Minister will give favourable consideration to the amendment, or to .any similar amendment that is presented in another place. If his assurances are written into the Bill, no one will be able to go against them later—which is something that no right hon. or hon. Member in any part of the House would wish to see happen.
      Mr. Moynihan: The thrust of the speech of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) concerned pensions, but schedule 2 has nothing to do with pensions. It deals with transfer schemes.
      The amendment requires that any transfer scheme made under schedule 2 must provide for all the detailed supplemental provisions set out in schedule 2(3)(2). The word "may" has been used to provide a very necessary element of flexibility in the supplemental arrangements. The drawing up of schemes of transfer will be a complex undertaking, and it would be ridiculous to require the
      74
      schemes to provide for all the supplemental provisions set out in schedule 2(3)(2) irrespective of the particular circumstances.
      One of the supplemental provisions, set out in paragraph (3)(2)(e), enables a transfer scheme to provide for continuity of employment. I expected that the debate would concentrate on that point. In Committee, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning gave clear assurances about the rights of staff which I am happy to repeat. The contracts of existing water authority staff will be transferred either to the water services plcs or to the National Rivers Authority. The Secretary of State will not approve schemes of transfer made under schedule 2 unless they provide for continuity of employment. Having repeated that assurance, and taking into account the advantage that the Bill's existing wording provides in terms of necessary flexibility, I ask the House to reject the amendment.
      On the specific points made by the hon. Member For Burnley, I repeat that the whole point of the mirror image schemes is to make certain that our objective of ensuring that no pensioner is disadvantaged by the act of transferring liability from a water authority to its successor company is achieved and that responsibility for payment is clear both to the recipient and to the body that will be responsible for it. An enormous number of factors will be taken into account in the deeds, including the responsibilities to be transferred to the NRA, gratuity awards, injury allowance, retirement compensation, pension enhancements, and pensions payable to former water authority chairmen and board members through determinations made by the Secretary of State. The question of what is to be in those deeds will be overwritten by our absolute determination that not one pensioner will be disadvantaged. I hope that that clarifies the position. It will probably not deter the hon. Member for Burnley from dividing the House, but I hope that the points I have made will dissuade him from doing so.
      Ms. Walley: The Minister referred to the many general aspects to which the schedule refers, but we choose to concentrate on pensions because of our belief that pensions and the long-term interests of water authority employees are of paramount importance. We particularly want to focus attention on protecting employees' long-term interests and pension rights.
      We are right to be concerned about the aspects raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). Some of the employees about whom we are speaking, when they retire, will have given a lifetime of public service to the water industry, and on reaching the end of their careers they are entitled to the same rights as those that they expected at the beginning of their careers. Some of the Government's proposals relate only to employees' short-term interests and do not properly safeguard pension rights.
      The only way of ensuring that workers retain their existing pension rights is by incorporating adequate protection in the Bill. If that cannot be done this. afternoon, I hope that the Minister will agree—as he has in respect of the costs of funding land drainage—to return at a later stage with a safeguard of the kind that the amendment seeks.
      Just to concentrate on pensions, it is important to understand the present situation. I should like to clarify that, because most people in the water industry are

      75
      currently in the water authorities superannuation fund, which is exactly the same as the local authorities superannuation scheme. I do not want to suggest that absolutely everything about it was marvellous—I was lobbied only recently about the way in which women are discriminated against in one small part of the scheme when it comes to widowers' rights—but the point is that the benefits of the scheme are statutory, as is the scheme itself. There is also automatic index-linking of the pensions.
      Earlier in the debate the Minister touched on what he referred to as peripheral matters relating to pensions which, in a way, pre-empted the debate that we are having now; but it is equally important that we concentrate on the basic aspects of pensions and index-linking which we would like to see.
      5.30 pm
      Last year, the water authorities wanted to set up their own pension schemes, linked to privatisation but technically separate. This particular scheme could have advantages in so far as it would not necessarily discriminate against women, but it is a trust-based scheme governed by trustees, so is not statutory. I was very interested in the comments that the Minister made earlier when he talked about mirror image schemes not having any place as a concept when it came to privatisation.
      We do not accept that the trust schemes themselves can give exactly the kind of statutory backing that is required now and in the future. That is why we want this amendment changed. We are concerned that index-linking is not guaranteed. The Government now say that the people who go to the National Rivers Authority will be able to maintain their membership of the water authorities superannuation fund but that those who stay with the private companies must choose either to maintain the current accrued benefits, that is, frozen benefits, or transfer to the water authorities scheme, or that each water authority will set up a mirror image of the water authorities superannuation fund.
      It is this latter mirror image scheme which concerns us. Any future improvements will not be guaranteed in this scheme and there is constant pressure to remove the elements of the water authorities superannuation fund which discriminate against women, which are likely to change in the not-too-distant future. In addition, the mirror image will be not statutory but trust-based. We ask why it cannot be enshrined in law. We are very concerned lest the trustees change their minds in the future. Although in debate on previous amendments the Minister mentioned that two out of six trustees would be members and also that if any trustees objected to the winding up of a trust fund it would not be wound up, we do not feel that those safeguards are sufficient to protect the long-term pension rights of people who have trusted that their pension rights would be safeguarded for as long as necessary.
      One of the problems facing employees—this is something else connected with this amendment which the Minister might like to take up in another place—is that they are now having to choose which pension scheme is best suited to their needs; but people cannot yet make an informed decision because the proposals are still before Parliament, which may change certain features—I hope that we can indeed do so.
      76
      It is unfortunate, in view of all this, that the water authorities set a deadline of 31 March 1989, a date which has already passed, to enable employees to transfer to their scheme with pension rights safeguarded. They now say that they will not guarantee the transfer with all qualifying service as of right—that is, transfer on a year-to-year basis of pension payments. They will not say how much and on what terms previous service will count in pension assessment. In view of that, is there any hope that at this very late stage the Government will consider extending the 31 March deadline?
      This is another of the amendments by which we would like to make absolutely certain that the present and future well-being of employees is enshrined in the legislation, particularly when it comes to safeguarding the pension rights of people who have been, are and will be employed in the water industry. It is for this reason that we tabled the amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 308.

      Division No. 135]

      [5.35 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Darling, Alistair

      Allen, Graham

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Alton, David

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Dewar, Donald

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Dixon, Don

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Dobson, Frank

      Ashton, Joe

      Doran, Frank

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Douglas, Dick

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Barron, Kevin

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Battle, John

      Eadie, Alexander

      Beckett, Margaret

      Eastham, Ken

      Beith, A. J.

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Blair, Tony

      Fatchett, Derek

      Blunkett, David

      Faulds, Andrew

      Boateng, Paul

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Boyes, Roland

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

      Bradley, Keith

      Fisher, Mark

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Flannery, Martin

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Flynn, Paul

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Foster, Derek

      Buchan, Norman

      Fraser, John

      Buckley, George J.

      Fyfe, Maria

      Caborn, Richard

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Gould, Bryan

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Graham, Thomas

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Cartwright, John

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Clay, Bob

      Hardy, Peter

      Clelland, David

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Henderson, Doug

      Cohen, Harry

      Hinchliffe, David

      Coleman, Donald

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Holland, Stuart

      Corbett, Robin

      Home Robertson, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cousins, Jim

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cox, Tom

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Crowther, Stan

      Howells, Geraint

      Cryer, Bob

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Cummings, John

      Hoyle, Doug

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      77

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Illsley, Eric

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Ingram, Adam

      Radice, Giles

      Janner, Greville

      Randall, Stuart

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Redmond, Martin

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Richardson, Jo

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Kennedy, Charles

      Robertson, George

      Kilfedder, James

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Rogers, Allan

      Lambie, David

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Ruddock, Joan

      Leighton, Ron

      Salmond, Alex

      Lewis, Terry

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Litherland, Robert

      Sheerman, Barry

      Livsey, Richard

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Skinner, Dennis

      Loyden, Eddie

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      McAllion, John

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

      McAvoy, Thomas

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

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Spearing, Nigel

      McFall, John

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McKelvey, William

      Stott, Roger

      McLeish, Henry

      Strang, Gavin

      Madden, Max

      Straw, Jack

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Marek, Dr John

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Turner, Dennis

      Martlew, Eric

      Vaz, Keith

      Maxton, John

      Wall, Pat

      Meacher, Michael

      Wallace, James

      Michael, Alun

      Walley, Joan

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Morley, Elliott

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Mullin, Chris

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Murphy, Paul

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Nellist, Dave

      Wilson, Brian

      O'Brien, William

      Winnick, David

      O'Neill, Martin

      Worthington, Tony

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Parry, Robert

      Patchett, Terry

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Pendry, Tom

      Mrs. Llin Golding and

      Pike, Peter L.

      Mr. Frank Haynes.

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Amess, David

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Amos, Alan

      Brazier, Julian

      Arbuthnot, James

      Bright, Graham

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Ashby, David

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

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Atkinson, David

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Burns, Simon

      Baldry, Tony

      Burt, Alistair

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Butcher, John

      Bellingham, Henry

      Butterfill, John

      Bendall, Vivian

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Carrington, Matthew

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Cash, William

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Chapman, Sydney

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Chope, Christopher

      Boswell, Tim

      Churchill, Mr

      Bottomley, Peter

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

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      78

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Howard, Michael

      Colvin, Michael

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

      Conway, Derek

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B' wd)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Couchman, James

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Cran, James

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Critchley, Julian

      Hunter, Andrew

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Irvine, Michael

      Curry, David

      Jack, Michael

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

      Jackson, Robert

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Janman, Tim

      Day, Stephen

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Devlin, Tim

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Dicks, Terry

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Dover, Den

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Dunn, Bob

      Key, Robert

      Durant, Tony

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Eggar, Tim

      Knapman, Roger

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Evennett, David

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Knowles, Michael

      Fallon, Michael

      Knox, David

      Favell, Tony

      Lang, Ian

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Latham, Michael

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Forman, Nigel

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Lilley, Peter

      Forth, Eric

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Lord, Michael

      Franks, Cecil

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Freeman, Roger

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      French, Douglas

      McCrindle, Robert

      Fry, Peter

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Gale, Roger

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Gardiner, George

      Maclean, David

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Gill, Christopher

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Madel, David

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Malins, Humfrey

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Mans, Keith

      Gorst, John

      Maples, John

      Gow, Ian

      Marlow, Tony

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Mates, Michael

      Gregory, Conal

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Grist, Ian

      Mellor, David

      Ground, Patrick

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Mills, Iain

      Hague, William

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Moate, Roger

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hannam, John

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

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

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Harris, David

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Mudd, David

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Neale, Gerrard

      Hayes, Jerry

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Neubert, Michael

      Hayward, Robert

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon Wost)

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Norris, Steve

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hill, James

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hind, Kenneth

      Page, Richard

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Paice, James

      Holt, Richard

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      79

      Patnick, Irvine

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Sumberg, David

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geotfrey

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Pawsey, James

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Portillo, Michael

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Price, Sir David

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Raffan, Keith

      Thorne, Neil

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Rathbone, Tim

      Thurnham, Peter

      Redwood, John

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Renton, Tim

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Tracey, Richard

      Riddick, Graham

      Tredinnick, David

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Trippier, David

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Trotter, Neville

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Viggers, Peter

      Rost, Peter

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Rowe, Andrew

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Ryder, Richard

      Walden, George

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Waller, Gary

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Ward, John

      Scott, Nicholas

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Watts, John

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Wells, Bowen

      Shelton, Sir William

      Wheeler, John

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Whitney, Ray

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Sims, Roger

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Wilkinson, John

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Wilshire, David

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Wolfson, Mark

      Speller, Tony

      Wood, Timothy

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Woodcock, Mike

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Yeo, Tim

      Squire, Robin

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Steen, Anthony

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stern, Michael

      Mr. David Lightbown and

      Stevens, Lewis

      Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

      Stewart. Allan (Eastwood)

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Schedule 4

      CUSTOMER SERVICE COMMITTEES
      Amendment made: No. 96 in page 194, line 2, at end insert—
      'Public access to meetings
      7. In paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 (bodies to which Act applies in England and Wales), at the end there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—

      "(i) customer service committees established and
      maintained under the Water Act 1989.";

      and the functions of a customer service committee shall be regarded as public functions for the purposes of that Act.'.—[Miss Emma Nicholson.],

    Schedule 5

      TRANSITIONAL PROVISION ON TERMINATION OF APPOINTMENTS
      Mr. Moynihan: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 198, line 9 leave out from 'provision' to end of line 11 and insert
      80
      'which corresponds in relation to any enactment mentioned in Schedule 23 to this Act to any provision made by that Schedule or makes similar provision in relation to any other enactment;'.
      Schedule 5(6) enables the Secretary of State, in connection with the making of a replacement appointment or variation of area under clause 11, to make transitional provisions and savings, if he thinks it appropriate, by order. The paragraph as drafted allows any provision corresponding to one made in relation to the transfer date by schedule 23.
      The purpose of this technical amendment is simply to broaden schedule 5(6) so that, following the making of a replacement appointment or variation of area, it will be possible to make transitional provisions which correspond not only to the provisions made in respect of the legislation mentioned in schedule 23 but also to other, for example future, legislation.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Schedule 8

      SEWERAGE FUNCTIONS
      Mr. Edward Leigh: I beg to move amendment No. 145, in page 208, line 9, at end insert—
      'Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act 1944 (c. 26)
      (1) In section 1(1) of the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act 1944 (government contributions towards expenses of water authorities for the purposes of rural water supplies and sewerage) the words "subject to such conditions as the Treasury may determine," shall be omitted.
      (2) For the words "may, in any case in which it appears to him to be desirable so to do, undertake to make a contribution" there shall be substituted the words "shall make a contribution of at least 50 per cent.".
      (3) The words "provided that the Minister shall not undertake to make a contribution towards the expenses of making provision for the sewerage, or the disposal of the sewage, of a rural locality unless he is satisfied that the need for making the provision is due to anything done or proposed to be done, whether before or after the passing of this Act, to supply, or increase the supply of, water in pipes in that locality." shall be omitted.'.
      As I represent a rural constituency, I am moving this probing amendment so that I may ask the Minister some questions which are of interest to those who live in rural areas.
      At present, local Government meets about 50 per cent. of the cost of the schemes to which my amendment refers and I am wondering how much of present legislation is a legacy of the past. In 1989, sewerage services should be available in all areas, except in really isolated places where provision would be uneconomic. Under current requisition procedures, rural sewerage facilities are not being provided adequately, and it would seem that the Government should adopt a totally different approach to this issue.
      When I raised the matter in Committee I said that, while the problem affected only about 5 per cent. of households, it was serious problem nevertheless. I am not suggesting the schemes should apply to isolated houses or hamlets, but, as I said in Committee, some quite large villages can be without sewerage schemes. For example, Wormley in Surrey is a semi-urban area with about 400 houses, and Claxby in my constituency is a relatively large village which has been campaigning for some time to have a sewerage scheme.
      Under existing legislation, water authorities have a general duty to provide such a scheme, but the local authority must requisition the scheme. As the local authority pays about 50 per cent. of the cost, there is no incentive for the authority to do that. That results in much buck-passing among local authorities, water authorities and the Government, so that schemes of this type rarely come to light.
      I do not suggest that my amendment is the only way forward or that the Government should necessarily pay as large a contribution as I suggest. I hope, however, that the Government will look into the problem which, while small in national terms, is important to rural communities.
      Mr. Wigley: I support the amendmemt because the circumstances described by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) obtain in many rural areas. They certainly do in mine, and I would not belittle scattered hamlets, which also have the right to modern facilities.
      It is important for us to consider how financial assistance of the type that we are discussing will be available once the Bill becomes law. In that context, the amendment may not go far enough, but it would be a move in the right direction, and considering that it has been proposed by a Government Member, we in the Opposition should support it.
      The hon. Gentleman described it as a probing amendment. I regard it as stronger than that. It should be added to the Bill; and if the Government say that it is too untidy as drafted, they could accept the principle involved in it and tidy it up in another place.
      Mr. Moynihan: Clause 69 gives owners, occupiers and certain public bodies, including local authorities, the right to require a sewerage undertaker to provide a public sewer. The person requisitioning the sewer is required to pay over 12 years any difference between the charges for the use of the sewer and the cost incurred by the undertaker in providing it.
      Rural sewerage grant is available under the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act 1944 to reduce the cost which would otherwise fall on those requisitioning a public sewer. It is paid to the undertaker on condition that it is used to reduce the deficit payments required from the local authority or the owners and occupiers requisitioning schemes. The grant is paid at the rate of 35 per cent. of the eligible cost of a scheme or 35 per cent. of £3,310 per property served, whichever is the lower. In 1987–88, grant totalling £4 million was approved in respect of 68 sewerage schemes.
      The purpose of amendment 145, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) pointed out, is to require the Secretary of State to pay grant at a rate of at least 50 per cent. of the cost of the works. I believe that it would be unfair and undesirable to increase the rate of grant in the way my hon. Friend suggests and to compel the Secretary of State to pay grant in all cases at a particular minimum level.
      Mr. Wigley: Why?
      Mr. Moynihan: Because it would favour those areas where provision of necessary first-time sewerage had been slow in comparison with areas where the water authority and the local authorities between them had made good progress. It would be undesirable because higher rates of
      82
      grant would remove to some extent the financial discipline on both water undertakers and local authorities to ensure that requisitioned schemes were both justified and economically designed.
      I hope that what I have said will reassure my hon. Friend about the arrangements and that he will agree to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Leigh: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Hon. Members: No.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): In that case, I must put the Question.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 172, Noes 310.

      Division No. 136]

      [5.59 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Allen, Graham

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Alton, David

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Graham, Thomas

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Ashton, Joe

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Hardy, Peter

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Haynes, Frank

      Barron, Kevin

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Battle, John

      Henderson, Doug

      Beith, A. J.

      Hinchliffe, David

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

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hood, Jimmy

      Blair, Tony

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Blunkett, David

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Boateng, Paul

      Howells, Geraint

      Boyes, Roland

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Bradley, Keith

      Hoyle, Doug

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Buckley, George J.

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Illsley, Eric

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Ingram, Adam

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Janner, Greville

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Clay, Bob

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Clelland, David

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Kennedy, Charles

      Cohen, Harry

      Kilfedder, James

      Coleman, Donald

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Lambie, David

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Leighton, Ron

      Cox, Tom

      Lewis, Terry

      Cryer, Bob

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Cummings, John

      Loyden, Eddie

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      McAllion, John

      Cunningham, Dr John

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Dalyell, Tam

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Darling, Alistair

      McFall, John

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Dewar, Donald

      McKelvey, William

      Dixon, Don

      McLeish, Henry

      Dobson, Frank

      McWilliam, John

      Doran, Frank

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Marek, Dr John

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Eastham, Ken

      Martlew, Eric

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Maxton, John

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Meacher, Michael

      Fatchett, Derek

      Michael, Alun

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

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Fisher, Mark

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Foster, Derek

      Morley, Elliott

      83

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mullin, Chris

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

      Murphy, Paul

      Soley, Clive

      Nellist, Dave

      Spearing, Nigel

      O'Brien, William

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      O'Neill, Martin

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Stott, Roger

      Parry, Robert

      Strang, Gavin

      Patchett, Terry

      Straw, Jack

      Pendry, Tom

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Turner, Dennis

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Vaz, Keith

      Radice, Giles

      Wall, Pat

      Randall, Stuart

      Wallace, James

      Redmond, Martin

      Walley, Joan

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Richardson, Jo

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Robertson, George

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Rogers, Allan

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Winnick, David

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Worthington, Tony

      Ruddock, Joan

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Salmond, Alex

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Mr. Dafydd Wigley and

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Mr. Richard Livsey.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Chapman, Sydney

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Chope, Christopher

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Churchill, Mr

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

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

      Amess, David

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Amos, Alan

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Colvin, Michael

      Ashby, David

      Conway, Derek

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Atkins, Robert

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Atkinson, David

      Cormack, Patrick

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Couchman, James

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Cran, James

      Baldry, Tony

      Critchley, Julian

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Bellingham, Henry

      Curry, David

      Bendall, Vivian

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

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Day, Stephen

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Devlin, Tim

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Dicks, Terry

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Dover, Den

      Boswell, Tim

      Dunn, Bob

      Bottomley, Peter

      Durant, Tony

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Eggar, Tim

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Evennett, David

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Fallon, Michael

      Brazier, Julian

      Favell, Tony

      Bright, Graham

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

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

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Forman, Nigel

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Burns, Simon

      Forth, Eric

      Burt, Alistair

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Butcher, John

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Butterfill, John

      Franks, Cecil

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Freeman, Roger

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      French, Douglas

      Carrington, Matthew

      Fry, Peter

      Cash, William

      Gale, Roger

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Gardiner, George

      84

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Gill, Christopher

      Maclean, David

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Goodlad, Alastair

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Madel, David

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Gorst, John

      Malins, Humfrey

      Gow, Ian

      Mans, Keith

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Maples, John

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Marlow, Tony

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Gregory, Conal

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Mates, Michael

      Grist, Ian

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Ground, Patrick

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Mellor, David

      Hague, William

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Mills, Iain

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Moate, Roger

      Hannam, John

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

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

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Harris, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Mudd, David

      Hayes, Jerry

      Neale, Gerrard

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hayward, Robert

      Neubert, Michael

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hill, James

      Norris, Steve

      Hind, Kenneth

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Holt, Richard

      Page, Richard

      Howard, Michael

      Paice, James

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

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Pawsey, James

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Irvine, Michael

      Portillo, Michael

      Irving, Charles

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Jack, Michael

      Price, Sir David

      Jackson, Robert

      Raffan, Keith

      Janman, Tim

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Rathbone, Tim

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Redwood, John

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Renton, Tim

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Riddick, Graham

      Key, Robert

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Knapman, Roger

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Rost, Peter

      Knowles, Michael

      Rowe, Andrew

      Knox, David

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Ryder, Richard

      Lang, Ian

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Latham, Michael

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Lilley, Peter

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lord, Michael

      Sims, Roger

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      85

      Speller, Tony

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Viggers, Peter

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Squire, Robin

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Walden, George

      Steen, Anthony

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

      Stern, Michael

      Waller, Gary

      Stevens, Lewis

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Ward, John

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Watts, John

      Sumberg, David

      Wells, Bowen

      Summerson, Hugo

      Wheeler, John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Whitney, Ray

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wilkinson, John

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Wilshire, David

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Thorne, Neil

      Wood, Timothy

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Woodcock, Mike

      Thurnham, Peter

      Yeo, Tim

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Tracey, Richard

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Tredinnick, David

      Trippier, David

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Trotter, Neville

      Mr. David Lightbown and

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after Six o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [6 February] and the resolutions [21 March] to put forthwith the Questions on the remaining amendments moved by a member of the Government.

    Schedule 10

      PROVISIONS RELATING TO METERS ETC.
      Amendments made: No. 65, in page 214, line 52, at end insert—
      '(1A) The power under sub-paragraph (1) to carry out works specified in sub-paragraph (2) below shall include power to carry out such works in a street; and the power conferred by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) (c) of paragraph 2 of Schedule 18 to this Act and sub-paragraphs (4) to (6), (8) and (9) of that paragraph and paragraph 3 of that Schedule shall apply in relation to the power conferred by this sub-paragraph as they apply in relation to the powers conferred by the said paragraph 2.'.
      No. 66, in page 215, line 1, leave out 'sub-paragraph (1)' and insert
      'sub-paragraphs (I) and (1A)'.
      No. 67, in page 215, line 13, leave out 'on those premises'.
      No. 68, in page 216, line 10, leave out 'on any premises'.
      No. 69, in page 216, line 46, after 'above', insert 'on any premises'.
      No. 70, in page 218, line 14, after 'works', insert 'on any premises'.—[Mr. Ridley.]

    Schedule 12

      AMENDMENTS OF THE WATER RESOURCES ACT 1963
      Amendments made: No. 28, in page 230, line 25, at end insert—
      '(3) In subsection (6) of that section, at the end there shall be inserted the words "and the quantity of water authorised to be abstracted from the strata in any period of twenty-four hours does not exceed twenty cubic metres in aggregate.".'.
      No. 29, in page 233, line 5, at end insert—
      'Section 131 of the 1963 Act
      .—(1) In section 131 (2) (a) of the 1963 Act (licence in
      86
      respect of waters owned or managed by the British Waterways Board), after "Act" there shall be inserted the words "and no person other than the Board or a person authorised for the purpose by the Board may be given a consent for the purposes of section 24 (1A) of this Act".'.—[Mr. Ridley.]

    Schedule 14

      AMENDMENTS OF THE LAND DRAINAGE ACT I976
      Amendments made: No. 49, in page 242, line 43, leave out 'by the Minister' and insert
      'jointly by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State'.
      No. 50, in page 243, line 16, leave out 'by the Minister' and insert
      'jointly by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State'.—[Mr. Ridley.]

    Schedule 16

      TRANSFER OF FISHERIES FUNCTIONS TO THE AUTHORITY.
      Amendments made: No. 4, in page 255, line 4, at end insert
      '( ) In section 6(3) (definition of "unauthorised fixed engine"), at the end of paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the words "or

      (d) a fixed engine which is placed and used by the National Rivers Authority with the consent of, or in accordance with a general authorisation given by, the Minister or the Secretary of State."'.

      No. 5, in page 255, line 19, leave out from '(3)' to end of line 20 and insert
      'for the words from "by", in the first place whre it occurs, onwards three shall be substituted the words "on an application made to him by the National Rivers Authority, by order made by statutory instrument make provision in relation to an area defined by the order—

      (a) for the imposition on the owners and occupiers of fisheries in that area of requirements to pay contributions to that Authority of such amounts as may be determined under the order in respect of the expenses of the carrying out in relation to that area of that Authority's functions with respect to fisheries;

      (b) for such contributions to be paid or recovered in such manner and to be refundable in such circumstances as may be specified in or determined under the order;

      (c) for the modification, in relation to the fisheries in that area, of any provisions of this Act relating to the regulation of fisheries or of any provisions of a local Act relating to any fishery in that area;

      and an order under this subsection may contain such supplemental, consequential and transitional provision, including provision for the payment of compensation to persons injuriously affected by the order, as may appear to be necessary or expedient in connection with the other provisions of the order."'.—[Mr. Ridley.]

    Schedule 18

      POWERS WITH RESPECT TO THE LAYING AND MAINTENANCE OF PIPES ETC.
      Amendments made: No. 71, in page 260, line 5, after '(4)' insert
      'Without prejudice to paragraph 1 (1A) of Schedule 10 to this Act,'—
      page 263, line 50, at end insert—
      '(6A) Where, apart from this sub-paragraph, any person entitled to an interest in any land would be entitled under this paragraph to an amount of compensation in respect of any works, there shall be

      87
      deducted from that amount an amount equal to the amount by which the carrying out of the works has enhanced the value of any other land which—

      (a) is contiguous or adjacent to that land; and

      (b) is land to an interest in which that person is entitled in the same capacity.'.—[Mr. Ridley.]

    Schedule 22

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 73, in page 290, line 41, at end insert—
      'and, in paragraph 12(6), after the words "paragraph (b)" there shall be inserted the words "or paragraph (bb)".'.
      No. 74, in page 291, line 31 after 'undertakers', insert
      'or the National Rivers Authority'.
      No. 75, in page 291, line 32, after 'undertakers', insert
      'or the National Rivers Authority'.
      No. 76, in page 291, line 34, after 'undertakers', insert
      'or the National Rivers Authority'.
      No. 42, in page 299, line 6, at end insert—
      'The Water (Scotland) Act 1980 (c. 45)
      50A. In section 31 of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980 (consultation with authorities in England) for the words "water authorities" there shall be substituted the words "water undertakers".'.
      No. 6, in page 305, line 44, at end insert—
      '(3) In paragraph 10(1)(b) of Schedule 5 to that Act (exemption for hereditaments subject to contributions under paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 3 to the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act (1975), for the words from "paragraph 1(a)" onwards there shall be substituted the words "section 28(3)(a) of that Act.".".—[Mr. Ridley.]

    Schedule 23

      TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS
      Amendments made: No. 92, in page 306, line 11, at end insert—
      '(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for any liability which is—

      (a) saved by virtue of this paragraph; and

      (b) transferred in accordance with a scheme under Schedule 2 to this Act to a successor company,

      to be transferred, at a time when that company is wholly owned by the Crown, to that company's nominated holding company.'.
      No. 93, in page 306, line 18, at end insert—
      '(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such transitional provisions and savings as he considers appropriate in relation to so much of any provision having effect immediately before the transfer date by or under any enactment as provides for or relates to the payment by a water authority of pensions, allowances or gratuities to or in respect of persons who have been—

      (a) officers or employees of any person whose activities at any time before the transfer date appear to the Secretary of State to have consisted in, or to have been connected with, the carrying out of any function which is transferred by this Act or which corresponds to any such function or to any other function under this Act; or

      (b) chairmen or members of any body whose activities at any such time so appear to the Secretary of State.

      (3)Without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph
      (2) above or to any transfer in accordance with a scheme under Schedule 2 to this Act of any liability saved by regulations under that sub-paragraph such regulations may—

      (a) subject to sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) below, impose requirements on the Authority, on any successor company or on the nominated holding company of any successor company;

      (b) modify any such provision as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) above;

      (c) in the case of regulations made after the transfer date, require provision contained in the regulations to be treated as if it came into force on that date.

      (4) No requirement shall be imposed on any company by any regulations under sub-paragraph (2) above made after the company has ceased to be wholly owned by the Crown; but a company's ceasing to be wholly owned by the Crown shall not affect any requirement imposed on it by any regulations under that sub-paragraph made before the company ceased to be so wholly owned.
      (5) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to pay the Authority out of money provided by Parliament all such sums as the Authority may require for fulfilling requirements imposed on it by regulations under sub-paragraph (2) above.
      (6) The reference in sub-paragraph (2) above to the payment of pensions, allowances or gratuities includes a reference to the payment of compensation for loss of office or of any such compensation as is payable to or in respect of an officer or employee for any other reason.'
      No. 22, in page 310, line 37, leave out from beginning
      to 'in' in line 39 and insert—
      '(4) On and after the transfer date subsection (6A) of section 70 of this Act shall apply, as it applies in relation to the sums mentioned in that subsection,'.
      No. 60, in page 319, line 20, at end insert
      '; and no licence may be granted by virtue of this paragraph in relation to any waters to which section 131 of the 1963 Act applies (waters owned or managed by the British Waterways Board) unless—

      (a) the application for the licence was accompanied by the prescribed evidence that notice of the application was served on the British Waterways Board; and

      (b) the Authority has considered any representations or objections made by that Board within the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the day on which the application was made or such longer period as the Authority may allow.'.

      No. 77, in page 320, line 24, after 'sections', insert
      'and Part II of the said Act of 1965'.
      No. 30, in page 321, line 40, at end insert—
      '. The repeal by this Act of the Drought Act 1976 shall not affect—

      (a) any order under that Act which is in force immediately before the transfer date;

      (b) any power to make an order under that Act on an application (whether made before, on or after that date) of which notice was given before that date; or

      (c) the operation of the provisions of that Act in relation to any such order or application;

      but, in relation to any time on or after that date, that Act and anything done under it shall have effect by virtue of this paragraph as if references to a water authority were references to the successor company of that water authority.'.
      No. 7, in page 323, line 25, at end insert—
      '(4) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing so much of any order under section 28(3) of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 or of any licence under Part I of Schedule 3 to that Act as—

      (a) is in force immediately before the transfer date; and

      (b) has the effect for the purposes of section 6 of that Act (prohibition on placing and use of unauthorised fixed engines) of authorising the placing or use of any fixed engine,

      from continuing to have that effect on and after that date.'.
      No. 87, in page 327, line 33 at end insert—
      'Transitory provision relating to rating
      .—(1) In relation to the period beginning with the transfer date and ending with 31st March 1990, the provisions of section 31 of and Schedule 4 to the General Rate Act 1967 (valuation of water hereditaments) shall have effect—

      (a) as if references in those provisions to any statutory water undertakers or to their undertaking included references to a water undertaker or to the undertaking of a water undertaker;

      (b) as if the successor company of a water authority were the same person in law as the water company; and

      (c) as if any hereditament which—

      (i) is occupied on and after that date by the Authority; and

      89

      (ii) was occupied, immediately before that date, by a water authority for the purposes of their functions with respect to the supply of water,

      were a water hereditament occupied by that water authority's successor company for the purposes of the company's functions (as a water undertaker) with respect to the supply of water.
      (2) Where any hereditament allocated to the Authority by a scheme under Schedule 2 to this Act will fall on and after the transfer date to be treated for the purposes of the provisions mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above as occupied by a successor company, that scheme may require the Authority to make payments to the successor company, of such amounts and at such time as may be determined in accordance with the scheme, by way of contributions in respect of any liability of the successor company in consequence of those provisions.
      (3) In relation to the period mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above, section 43 of the said Act of 1967 (exemption of property of certain authorities) shall have effect, subject to that sub-paragraph, as if the references in that section to a water authority and to a drainage authority included references, respectively, to the Authority and to an internal drainage board. '.—[Mr. Ridley.]

    Schedule 24

      REPEALS
      Amendments made: No. 8, in page 339, line 33, column 3, leave out '5,' and insert '1 to'.
      No. 38, in page 346, leave out lines 26 to 30.—[Mr. Ridley.]
      Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]
      6.12 pm
      The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      Out of the three days for the remaining stages of this Bill, the Opposition have chosen to use a quarter of the time on the Third Reading. On this occasion I think they were right: they completely failed to fault the Bill in Committee and the details were found to be correct. My hon. Friends, the two Ministers of State and the two Under-Secretaries of State, totally dominated the argument throughout the Committee stage. On Third Reading, we come back to the big issue of principle: the advantages of privatising the water supply and sewerage industries.
      We had scare stories and diversionary tactics galore—everything from turnstiles on national park walks to my alleged row with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister; from our proposals for price control for water companies that were alleged to be leading to huge monopoly price rises, to the cost of environmental improvements that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) alleged was due to privatisation. They were all nonsense—fictitious fig leaves to disguise the real reason for opposing the Bill: which is the lingering spirit of clause 4, the Labour party's antagonism to private enterprise, the pain and despair at seeing the Socialist state not only demolished but debunked in argument.
      The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) gave the game away a fortnight ago today when I intervened to ask her, if she wanted to see a major clean-up of our rivers, why she opposed the Bill? She did not have an answer, she fumbled and could only repeat her opposition to privatisation. The Committee stage has proved that there is no reason for opposing this Bill, other than the
      90
      emotional one that somehow water is different, that it is vital to life, and is provided by the Almighty. I shall therefore spend a few minutes discussing that incontrovertible observation.
      Yes, water is vital to life; but so is food, and housing and clothing, and many other things, too. Yet nobody suggests we should emulate the Russian system of collective farming and state food shops, which is the way the public sector provides for that staple of life which is food. Primitive man privatised food supplies, and so does civilised man. I will not attempt to answer for Ashdown man who has taken no part in the debates.
      Nor do I recommend the Socialist clothing shops to those aspiring countrymen of ours who clearly prefer Marks and Spencer. Nor do I recommend the Socialist provision of state housing. Even the Labour party knows that people prefer home ownership. But clothing and housing are staples of life, far better provided—does anyone disagree?—by the private sector.
      So what is so special about water? It is a natural monopoly, yes, but that is catered for in the regulatory arrangements that we are making. I would remind the House that it is not the water itself which we are proposing to privatise, but the impounding, piping, pumping, treatment, maintenance and billing of it—the industrial activity essential for its provision. Morever, we mortals dirty it. It has to be taken from our houses and purified, treated, pumped, piped and finally disposed of. Listening to Opposition Members, I sometimes think that they believe that it is the Tories who create sewage. I plead guilty to the fact that Tories do create 44 per cent. of it—our latest opinion poll rating—but that means that 40 per cent. is Labour, 12 per cent. Liberal/SDP and 4 per cent. do not know.
      Mr. Paul Boateng: Will the Secretary of State reflect on the fact that 96 per cent. of those who took part in a recent opinion poll on water privatisation and who assist in the production of sewage were against his Government's proposals?
      Mr. Ridley: I cannot accept that figure. The poll that I have quoted is the one the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind, instead of making such an unfelicitous intervention.
      The fact is that 42,000 people are employed in the provision of our water and sewerage services. Unfortunately, the Almighty does not pay their wages; nor does He provide the capital for the massive increase in environmental standards which this Bill will usher in. That is why water is not free, and never can be.
      The question is, how can this massive human enterprise be best motivated; and how can this large amount of other people's savings best be harnessed to the improvement works that everyone wants to see?
      Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us agree with him that we dislike state monopolies, which is why many of us voted for much of the privatisation that has taken place throughout this Government's period in office? If I dislike state monopolies, which in the end are controlled by the State, why should I like private monopolies that in the end are often against the public interest? What is so good about a private monopoly and what is so awful about a state monopoly, as with water where people have nowhere else to go to, as there is only one supplier?
      Mr. Ridley: I do not know whether my hon. Friend supported the Government when they privatised the airports, British Telecom and British Gas——
      Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Yes.
      Mr. Ridley: Those are all monopolies, too.
      Mr. Beaumont-Dark: They are not.
      Mr. Ridley: They are. There is no way of coming to London without going to Heathrow or Gatwick, which are both under the same ownership.
      These are the questions that are relevant to the Bill and which the Opposition shirk. I shall give them the answers. The whole country knows that people work more effectively if there is every opportunity for them to better themselves by better performance. In the private sector, water managers, foremen and employers will profit from success, and I hope that they will own shares which will then rise in value as these people succeed. In the private sector, capital which is borrowed from the market or from shareholders will be invested with all the efficiency and skill that those who are responsible to their shareholders have to demonstrate. Moreover, that capital will not be rationed as it is in public sector industries: it will be allocated by the market, if a water company can show a proper rate of return.
      We all know what happens with capital rationing in the state sector. Under the Opposition, capital spending was cut by a third, and investment in sewerage within that by a half. That is the albatross of which the Labour party will never be able to rid itself in these debates, and it continues powerfully to make the case for privatisation.
      Mr. Nigel Spearing: Talking of capital and shares, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm something with which I charged him on Second Reading and which I believe still stands? This capital will be available for diversification virtually without limitation. It will be open to the worldwide capital market, and the water companies can be controlled, bought and sold on that market without the control of the Government. Will the Minister confirm that that is true?
      Mr. Ridley: I was talking about loan capital, but I presume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to equity. I very much hope that the world loan markets will be available. That will mean that we can obtain the cheapest loan money for the environmental improvements that are required.
      As to shares limitations, the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what we have said will be the position in relation to golden shares. He also knows perfectly well what we have said will be our policy towards mergers and monopolies. That policy was discussed in Committee, and I believe it to be right.
      The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said a fortnight ago:
      "I am willing to set out all the answers to all those questions in a speech which I shall be making in a few weeks time."
      He is waiting until the debate is over before telling us his policy.
      "I agree that these things will cost money, and a great deal of money, and that the British people will need to pay. I also believe, that, overwhelmingly, they are willing to pay. It is not necessary to sell off the nation's water resources to achieve these objectives."—[Official Report, 21 March 1989; Vol. 149, c.969.]
      92
      I agree with the first part, but it is necessary to sell off the nation's water resources to achieve these objectives.
      The truth is, as Labour proved for us when in power, that the person who regulates an industry must be separate and different from the person who provides the service—hence the National Rivers Authority, which will be able to ensure proper standards without financial penalty to itself. It provides a far more satisfactory framework for setting national standards for the industry than has even been achieved while the industry has been owned by the public sector.
      The Opposition have only to look at the proposals for customer service standards and price control, and for quality of drinking water, and at the framework for setting and achieving higher standards for river and coastal water. Those standards were never set, let alone achieved, when they were in office.
      As a result of the Bill, standards will, for the first time, be clear, public, objective and measurable. The industry will have no option but to comply with them, because to do otherwise can lead to fines and, in the last analysis, to loss of appointment. When compliance cannot be achieved immediately, there will be a clear and explicit understanding of the steps to be taken to achieve compliance. The Bill is the biggest step forward for the environment since the time when the Opposition were only a gleam in Keir Hardie's eye. The creation of the NRA and the privatisation of the utilities is the only way to secure the environmental improvements to water quality and to the beaches and rivers that we all want. This will be coupled with a system of price regulation which will protect the consumer from exploitation by the monopoly.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: The Minister has spoken of the great price benefits for consumers of privatisation. Will he explain why the existing private statutory water companis have increased their prices by so much and attributed the increase to privatisation? Will he explain how it can be that his former hon. Friend Lord Elliott of Morpeth has told me in a letter that one of the three reasons for the 18·5 per cent. increase by the Newcastle and Gateshead water company is privatisation legislation, because it will change its financial regime from that of a statutory company to that of a plc? Surely the noble Lord is telling the truth?
      Mr. Ridley: I do not accept for one moment that the reason for the increase in water companies' charges, which averages 22 per cent., is necessarily right and justified—I do not have the bill. Secondly, I am certain the increases have nothing to do with privatisation——
      Mr. Beith: The companies say that they have.
      Mr. Ridley: Without the powers in the Bill enabling the director general to examine the books and to set a limit on price rises, and to check that they are due to environmental improvements, how can anyone possibly say whether these prices rises were justified?
      Secondly, there is no way in which the privately owned statutory water companies can be privatised, so the increases cannot be due to privatisation, whatever the noble Lord says.
      Thirdly, it is true that the existing structure of control of dividends and of that which can be put to reserve has starved those private companies of equity capital and forcing them to rely far too much on loan capital. On the

      93
      basis of that analysis, they have been failing to renew their assets and get their acts right. They would inevitably have to make changes as a result of moving to a proper balance sheet structure.
      Dr. John Cunningham: Does the Secretary of State recall holding up the statutory water companies as paragons of virtue on Second Reading and describing them as examples of how the water industry should be managed, operated and run? Why, now that this has all blown up in his face, are the companies overwhelmingly, if not universally, blaming the Bill for large increases in water prices? Is he calling them dishonest? What has happened?
      Mr. Ridley: What the hon. Gentleman said was not true; he should consult Hansard before making those accusations. I did not hold up the companies as paragons of financial virtue. I said that they had supplied water in the private sector to 25 per cent. of the population for many decades, and the hon. Gentleman had never noticed or objected.
      Secondly, I made it clear that the environmental improvements and the change in capital structures required for this massive investment would apply to all water companies as well as the water authorities. I have never disguised for one moment that the effect of the environmental improvements which the whole House wants will be an increase in prices.
      Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Secretary of State give way?
      Mr. Ridley: I have just given way to the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend, but I shall give way for the last time.
      Mr. Roberts: On what environmental improvements will the statutory water companies spend such large amounts after privatisation which they are not spending money on now—bearing in mind that they will still have no responsibility for sewage?
      Mr. Ridley: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman until the Director General of Water Supplies is in place—the hon. Gentleman voted against part II, which sets up the office of director general. How can anybody know how to regulate a price if there are not the powers to obtain the necessary information?
      The attitude of the hon. Gentleman is absurd. He might like to know that the Director General of Water Services, whose appointment I announced today, will do more to promote efficiency and customer interest than was ever achieved when this monopoly was in the public sector.
      So why do the Opposition oppose it? That is the question which the Opposition cannot answer and I will tell them why they cannot answer it. It is because at least one half of the Labour party have painfully, unhappily, belatedly come to realise that we are right. I quote from the second leak of the Labour party's policy in The Times of yesterday:
      "Under proposals which will be fought by left-wing unions and politicians only British Telecom, of all the utilities privatised by the Conservatives, would be taken back into public ownership under a Labour government."
      [Interruption.] Wait for it; the hon. Gentleman has a gem coming here.
      "Instead, the gas, water and electricity industries would be subjected to a tighter regulatory framework than at present
      94
      imposed on gas and Telecom. Plans to take permanent government stakes in strategic companies have also been shelved."
      Since this Bill contains that tighter regulatory framework which they seek, the Opposition have conceded the principle both of part I and of part II of the Bill. There is nothing left for them to stand on. I rest my case there. There is no longer any reason for Labour Members to stay even until 10 o'clock. The Opposition are not going to vote against this—but I hope that my hon. Friends will stay on until 10 o'clock, just in case. I am happy to assure hon. Gentlemen that their own party policy, which I am sorry that they have not been told about, utterly supports the Bill. I therefore commend it to the House.
      6.34 pm
      Dr. Cunningham: The Secretary of State began with what appeared to be a joke when he described what had been happening in the Water Bill Committee for the last four months. He is either a victim of the Minister for Water and Planning's doctoring of the reports from the Department of the Environment or he simply has not been reading the newspapers during that time. If he blissfully believes that his ministerial colleagues have won all the arguments and convinced the British public of the effectiveness of his proposals he is living in cloud-cuckooland. Judging by the remainder of his speech, that is exactly where he has been for the last four months.
      The Bill has been under scrutiny in debate since last December. It remains largely unchanged—that at least is true—but our fundamental criticisms remain, and public antipathy to the proposals continues to increase. The issues have been widely reported in the media and there has been huge public interest in our discussions. The response of the public, the press and the media generally has been overwhelmingly and heavily critical of the right hon. Gentleman's Bill. The Bill remains fundamentally weak, confused and, indeed, incoherent, and the ideas that he had cobbled together fell apart during examination in Committee.
      That is not surprising. The Secretary of State began by trying to hide a bad idea by claiming bogus environmental advantages for his Bill, but those bogus claims sank in a sea of his own confusion.
      Let us take the right hon. Gentleman's treatment of the pollution issue as a case in point. He said in parliamentary answers that he did not hold centrally information about pollution of our beaches. He could not tell us, he said, how many sewerage works discharged untreated raw sewage into the sea. The Secretary of State for Wales told us that the information was held centrally and he could provide it. That was on 14 March. On 22 March, the Secretary of State was able to tell the House that about 14 per cent. of sewage from England and Wales was discharged into the seas untreated. Miraculously, in two weeks, this information, which he said was not held centrally, had suddenly appeared.
      Mr. Ridley rose——
      Dr. Cunningham: In a moment. I am referring to the right hon. Gentleman's comments in column 1081 of the Official Report of Wednesday 22 March. The Prime Minister, in the meantime, goes on television and tells the British public that no untreated sewage is discharged into the seas around Britain.

      95
      Here we have the kind of confusion about these issues that is rampant in the Government. The Secretary of State for Wales contradicts the Secretary of State for the Environment; the Secretary of State for the Environment contradicts himself; and the Prime Minister contradicts everybody.
      Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman has made an awful mess of this one. The first question that he asked was how many outfalls there were in England. We do not have that information. Some of them are tiny. They do not have that information in Wales. That is the first point. When the hon. Gentleman asked a sensible question to which I had the answer—the 14 per cent.—I gave it to him immediately. He must not get mixed up between the two things.
      Dr. Cunningham: The Secretary of State is further confused, because it was not I who asked the second question; it was another hon. Member. It is passing strange that the Secretary of State says that he does not know how many outfalls pass untreated sewage into the sea, but he can give a percentage figure of how much sewage goes untreated into the sea. How does he arrive at the calculation? How has he come to that conclusion?
      The Secretary of State caused further confusion when he publicly abandoned his statutory duty to protect the environment by promising, on the record, that the cosseted private monopolies he wants to create would have immunity from prosecution if they polluted the water environment. The Secretary of State has tried to disguise the scale and nature of the problems by hiding the truth, as I have shown by the example I have just given. One week he cannot tell us the facts and the next week, when it suits his purpose, he has some facts.
      Let us come to the issue of the land assets, which has been such a bone of contention throughout our discussions. We know that the potential development and sale of 500,000 acres of land is one of the sweeteners which the Secretary of State is pushing towards the City and purchasers. The Minister for Water and Planning made that clear in his letter of 6 February to Mr. Jack Jeffery of the statutory water companies, when he said that the water companies, after privatisation, should offset costs by "proceeds of asset sales"—in other words, by selling their land.
      What is happening now, in anticipation of all this? I have here a copy of an advertisement by the Mid Southern water company explaining its reasons for increasing charges to its consumers. It says quite candidly that it had been seeking planning permission for some of its land and with such permission could have raised £1 million, which could have been used to offset price increases. Unhappily for the company—but happily for us and for the environment—planning permission was refused.
      When we debated all these matters in committee we were told by the Under-Secretary and the Minister for Water and Planning on several occasions that there were some "good arguments here". The Secretary of State replied to these matters recently when he was in Thirlmere in Cumbria in the Lake district. He claimed in his statement that his proposals would protect our national heritage. A newspaper report said:
      "The Council for National Parks said yesterday that Mr. Ridley's measures simply did not go far enough to be effective.
      96
      While we are delighted that the water authorities will have to consult the National Parks, there is no requirement for them to take any notice whatever of what the parks say".
      That is the limit of the safeguard about which the right hon. Gentleman has been boasting. The chairman of the council for the Protection of Rural England, Mr. David Astor, described the decision to leave the consultation over planning and development with private monopoly companies as "incredible". He said that it was
      "opening the floodgates for unprecedented abuse and distortion."
      Mr. Astor was speaking about planning and land development. That is the kind of confusion that the right hon. Gentleman is causing by his proposals for selling much of the national park areas.
      Mr. Boswell: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the private water undertakings will be able to take no notice of planning determinations by the national park authority? Secondly, in what respect are the safeguards offered by my right hon. Friend any less effective than those currently available to control the activities of public water undertakings?
      Dr. Cunningham: The very fact of passing the undertakings into private monopoly hands is enough to emphasise that point. Of course private water undertakings will not be able to ignore the decisions of planning authorities. I spend much time talking to people who manage national parks because my constituency is in such a park. If the hon. Gentleman talked to such people he would know that the pressure on national parks is huge and in some cases is overwhelming the authorities. They feel that controls and oversight should be strengthened and not weakened as proposed in the Bill.
      Mr. David Ashby: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Dr. Cunningham: No.
      Those arguments have been advanced not just by Opposition parties but by influential and well-informed organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the National Trust, the Countryside Commission and the Ramblers Association. They all express concern similar to ours and it has all been contemptuously dismissed by Tory Members who just ploughed on and voted down amendment after amendment. All major attempts to strengthen environmental safeguards and to protect our heritage have been rejected by the Government and their supporters in Committee. Privatisation is at best irrelevant to enhanced environmental protection and at worst positively disastrous and damaging.
      The Bill and Conservative intentions are a betrayal of water consumers, of every family and household in England and Wales. The Secretary of State says that consumers will be safeguarded and has been dismissive of statements by chairmen of statutory water companies. The West Kent water company was one of the first in the field with a price increase of 42 per cent. In its statement to consumers it says that half the price increase—21p in the pound—was to meet privatisation requirements.
      The Eastbourne statutory water company issued a notice on 27 February. The chairman's statement said:
      "The year 1988 has been significant for the effect of the Government's Policy of 'Privatisation' of the Water Industry and the very considerable increase in the work load placed on our staff, together with the considerable additional burden of

      97
      employing consultants, the cost of which is having to be met by our consumers, and which is likely to continue for some time. This additional cost is responsible for at least half of the increase in our charges from 1st January, 1989 and also partially responsible for the very considerable reduction in the surplus for 1988 compared with 1987. What is depressing is that I cannot foresee any worthwhile advantage to our consumers emanating from these Government proposals."
      This year those consumers face an increase of 43 per cent. in their water charges as a result, in large measure, of the Secretary of State's proposals.
      The chairman of the Eastbourne statutory water company continued:
      "I have never disguised my opinion that Privatisation is completely unsuitable for the Water Industry and I am extremely disillusioned by the Government's disadvantageous treatment of Statutory Water Companies, particularly in preventing them achieving PLC status until well after the Water Authorities. Civil Service and Government protestations of their intention to provide 'a level playing field' are totally hypocritical. The playing field is just about as level as the North Face of the Eiger."
      In December, the people running these organisations were being lauded in the Chamber as examples of the way in which the industry could and should be run.
      What of Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes, a former Conservative Minister? Is she to be believed when the chairmen of statutory water companies are no longer to be believed? In a letter to me in February announcing the publication of a National Consumer Council book entitled "In the absence of competition", she said:
      "As you will see my Council believes that the proposed regulatory framework for both water and electricity falls short of what is actually required."
      The book says:
      "If the consumer interest is to be protected in the water industry, some kind of national body for water consumers is essential."
      We moved such an amendment in Committee but it was rejected by Ministers and Government Back Benchers. The book goes on:
      "The proposals appear to be so complex as to raise serious doubts as to their viability."
      The National Consumer Council criticises and condemns the right hon. Gentleman's proposals. The document of his own departmental working group, a copy of which I have here and which is headed "Department of the Environment, 3 March 1989"—the report of the joint privatisation regulation group; civil servants in the Department of the Environment—shows what is happening.
      Page 2 says that the aim is to provide that the private monopolies
      "are permitted to earn a reasonable return, the secondary duty to consumers means that lower rather than higher 'Ks' should always be set."
      The secondary duty and not the primary duty is to consumers. That is what the right hon. Gentleman's civil servants area saying in private and it is quite different from what the right hon. Gentleman says in public.
      Mr. Nicholas Baker: The hon. Gentleman quoted the words of Mr. C. P. G. Turner, the chairman of the Eastbourne statutory water company. From what he read out, I understood Mr. Turner to be saying that he as the chairman of a statutory water company envied privatised water authorities and wanted his company to be in that position. He seemed to be envying the private companies and that is exactly contrary
      98
      to the hon. Gentleman's point. Instead of dealing with the opinions of other people, will the hon. Gentleman tell us the position of the Labour party on this matter?
      Dr. Cunningham: I will happily send the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) a copy of the whole statement of the chairman of the Eastbourne water company and he can consider it for himself.
      On page 3 of the internal document of the Secretary of State's Department, we read:
      "On the basis of these figures, a real return for water and sewerage undertakers … of the order of 8 per cent. would seem appropriate."
      Ministers are preparing to guarantee private monopolies a return of 8 per cent. That contrasts starkly with what the right hon. Gentleman says about local authorities running their direct labour organisations where he recommends a rate of return of 5 per cent. So it is 5 per cent. for local authorities' direct labour organisations while he is planning to arrange for 8 per cent. for private water monopolies. This is an interesting document. It gives a very different picture of events and discussions in private in the Department from what we had in Committee. It goes on to discuss cost pass through. Cost pass through is a little water pipe, a conduit of its own, which bypasses all the controls set to protect the consumer so that the cosseted private enterprise monopoly will be able to cost pass through straight to the consumer.
      What does cost pass through mean? It is a euphemism for uncontrolled price increases which consumers will be unable to avoid. That is what is going on behind the scenes. The Secretary of State may deny it, but here Is a copy of a document from his Department dated 3 March 1989 and headed: "A framework and procedures for K-setting".
      The Minister for Water and Planning (Mr. Michael Howard): Why is the hon. Gentleman seeking to mislead the House? If he has studied the provisions of the Bill he ought to know that cost pass through is subject to the control of the Director General of Water Services, and that it is designed to deal only with unforeseeable matters, such as new regulatory requirements. Does., the hon. Gentleman think that the companies should he in a position to meet the new regulatory requirements or not?
      Dr. Cunningham: Of course they ought to be in a position to meet them. They will have to meet them. They will have no choice. At least, that is what the European Commission believes. I am not sure that the Secretary of State believes that from what he has been saying and the way he has been behaving.
      What we need to know from the Government and from the Minister for Water and Planning, who will have the opportunity to tell us when he replies to the debate, is exactly how consumers will be protected from cost pass through. There is nothing in the Bill about it. There is no statutory safeguard in the legislation to protect consumers from cost pass through. Cost pass through will be used to cover a multitude of sins to enable private monopolies to load price increases on to consumers. That is what is proposed.
      Mr. Howard: I know that the hon. Gentleman could not attend the Committee frequently. Has he heard of the Director General of Water Services? If he had heard of the Director General of Water Services he would know that

      99
      the cost pass through provisions are subject to regulation by the Director General of Water Services. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that?
      Dr. Cunningham: I do not accept that. It is indicative of the depths to which the Minister stoops when he is in trouble. He knows that I attended the overwhelming majority of Committee sittings. He also knows that his right hon. Friend had not got the guts to go on the Committee at all. If we are trading attendances and attention to these matters, I can tell the Minister that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is nowhere in that argument because he did not even go on to the Committee. If that is the kind of argument that the Minister wants to have over the Dispatch Box, he is welcome to it. There was not a single attendance at the Committee by the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Howard: He was not a member.
      Dr. Cunningham: That is right; he was not a member. He refused to put himself up to be cross-examined about the mess. That is the record of the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Ridley rose——
      Dr. Cunningham: In view of all this, it is a pity that the Secretary of State has not departed, as I understood he was to do, from these proceedings to attend the christening of his grandson, which certainly I would have understood. His performance and that of the Minister of Water and Planning have not done much to enlighten the House or the public about this mess of legislation.
      Mr. Ridley: I just wish to ask the hon. Gentleman if he would kindly reply to my hon. and learned Friend's question about whether he understood that the Director General of Water Services is enabled to deny cost pass through if he thinks that it is not justified. Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw his failure to understand the Bill, because he has got it wrong?
      Dr. Cunningham: I do not withdraw anything. I do not accept that as the legislation stands, consumers will be adequately protected from cost pass through, and neither do Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes and many other people who are interested in the protection of consumers, as has been made abundantly clear over the last few weeks.
      Major differences of opinion between the Government and the European Commission also remain over exemption from pollution law, water quality standards, timetables for essential investment and the scale of such investment. It is in Britain that the confused, inefficient and dogmatic Tory proposals will be rejected, if not in their Lordships' House or in the City, ultimately at elections. Obdurate Tory insistence on making water supply and sewage disposal an issue of private profit is anathema to the majority of British people.
      Samuel Johnson, the 18th century satirist, had a very apt description for the Government and for Tory Back Benchers in his work, "The Vanity of Human Wishes":
      "How rarely reason guides the stubborn choice, rules the bold hand, or prompts the suppliant voice; How nations sink, by darling schemes oppressed."
      100
      This idea is one of the Prime Minister's darling schemes and the British people will certainly be oppressed by it. The Government will ultimately sink and these proposals will sink with them.
      I have been asked about our position and a leak in The Times which was news to me and was not the matter that I have been involved in discussing. I do not believe the quoted leak in The Times. I reiterate what I have said throughout the proceedings: water is the country's largest national and natural monopoly. It is the people's most fundamental resource, on which their health and well-being depend. We in the Labour party believe that this natural resource and the assets of the water industry should be publicly owned and controlled. They should be managed openly and efficiently in the public interest, and management should be democratically accountable at regional and national level. Unlike the Tories, we do not believe that an essential resource such as water should be managed and sold for private gain. For us, public health and hygiene are not matters which can be dealt with by market forces. We know that the overwhelming majority of the British people share our values and views in this matter. That is why we will vote against the Bill.
      Several hon. Members rose——
      Mr. Speaker: Order. In view of the large number of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate, I ask for brief contributions.
      6.59 pm
      Mr. Cranley Onslow: I will do my utmost to obey your injunction, Mr. Speaker. That excuses me from saying very much about the speech made by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) except to make two points. First, in my experience in the House or in Committee, bad temper is not a substitute for good argument. Secondly, it does not appear to me to follow, although it may follow for the hon. Member for Copeland, that there must be public ownership for public control. The hon. Gentleman should think a little more about the subject before he outlines Labour party policy on such matters in future.
      I support the Bill, and I believe that most of my constituents do the same. My constituents have been fortunate enough over a great many years to draw their drinking water from private suppliers and I have never had any complaints about that. Given that the much vaunted percentage increases about which we have heard so much this evening will still keep the average household's water cost to about the same as the cost of a national daily newspaper each day, keeping things in proportion, I do not believe that there will be as many complaints about costs as we have been led to believe, particularly in view of the powers to control prices in future which are rightly embodied in the Bill.
      I confess that I have received complaints about the drains, as have many of my colleagues. In my constituency complaints are directed against the Thames water authority, which is not a privately owned body. That authority is currently polluting the River Wey in my constituency in a most deplorable way. The local angling association shares my view about that.
      In general I have no doubt that the fight against pollution will be made easier and more effective by the Bill. The duty to fight pollution will unmistakably be present,

      101
      as will the money. The Treasury will not be able to stop that money, there will be no unseemly wrangles in the Star Chamber and the IMF will be unable to prevent the necessary investment in water quality as it did during the days of the late unlamented Labour Government. That is an important distinction which we should not cease to emphasise. The plcs will be able to raise the funds that they need and in a few years we stand the excellent chance of having many more rivers to be proud of once again. That would not have happened if the Government had not introduced this Bill.
      We must never forget human frailty, and we can never forecast it. It will remain possible, under this Bill or under any other legislation, for accidents, neglect or greed to create pollution in future just as they have done in the past. That means that the powers of inspection and enforcement which will be invested in the NRA will be absolutely vital. In its use of those powers, the NRA will have the support and active co-operation of anglers throughout the country, who, after all, spend more time than anyone else on river banks and are much the best inspectors of water quality in our rivers.
      I am also glad to know that the public right to prosecute will remain in law. If that right is to be used properly, the law must be effective and help the public enforce their rights in addition to enforcement by the NRA.
      My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning felt that my amendment No. 86 to clause 143 was unnecessary. He has written to several of my hon. Friends explaining his views. In his letter he states:
      "The Bill as drafted already meets the requirements"
      which the amendment seeks to achieve because—and I do not deny this—
      "it will be open to anyone to bring a prosecution over the pollution of 'controlled waters' … including prosecutions for breaches of the conditions attached to consents granted by the National Rivers Authority for the discharge of trade and sewage effluent …
      Second, the NRA as the body statutorily responsible for effluent discharge consents will have to use its powers under the clauses … to enter premises and sample effluent discharges in a systematic manner to ensure that the conditions of the consents are being met. Where a sample suggests that a consent requirement is being breached in a manner which could give grounds for prosecution, we would normally expect the NRA to start taking formal samples in accordance with Clause 143. But since the circumstances of each case will vary, it would be inappropriate to deny the Authority discretion as to whether this is appropriate in a particular case, and as to the number of occasions on which the taking of a formal sample is necessary. For that reason we could not support the particular amendment … But the Authority will have a clear obligation to take such number of formal samples as permits full and effective enforcement of the legislation, and the Secretary of State will have the power — to direct the Authority on how to discharge this obligation."
      So far, so good. However, in my capacity as a member of the council of the Angler's Co-operative Association which has initiated several prosecutions in this area, I must say that we are by no means convinced that my hon. Friend the Minister is right.
      Under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, provision was made to establish public registers of discharge analyses. The relevant section of that Act was implemented in July 1985, as my hon. Friend the Minister no doubt remembers. Since then, the Angler's Co-operative Association has used information from the registers to prosecute water authorities on three occasions. The authorities concerned were Thames and Anglian. On one of the occasions the
      102
      Thames water authority was prosecuted on eight separate charges, to which it pleaded guilty, and on each of which it was fined £1,000. The outcome of the other cases was much the same.
      At the moment, the ACA would like to take a similar action against a fish farmer on the Hampshire Avon. I believe the proprietors are the Radnor estates and the farm is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). I hope I will have his support when I make this point.
      The public register shows that that fish farm is at times in breach of conditions. However, the Wessex water authority declines to prosecute the polluter. The ACA cannot prosecute because the samples taken by the water authority are only for monitoring purposes. Therefore, for that purpose, the register is not worth the paper that it is written on. We cannot launch a common law action because it would be necessary to trespass to obtain formal samples.
      The Government claim that the right of private individuals to prosecute will remain. However, that right must be effective. In future, samples will be taken by the NRA and their validity may be challenged. However, more to the point, the NRA may lack the will to prosecute, as has been the case with the Wessex water authority.
      Mr. Robert Key: My right hon. Friend knows that for many years we have both been keen to ensure the quality of the Hampshire Avon. If we look at this question very carefully, it seems to me that under the new arrangements the vital difference is that the evidence under the formal NRA sampling exercise can be subpoenaed by a third party. In those circumstances, the Angler's Co-operative Association could undertake a private prosecution under this Bill.
      Mr. Onslow: I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can confirm that my hon. Friend is right. However, the important point is to take the samples. That is the necessary step towards a successful prosecution. My amendment sought to place a duty on the authority to take the samples.
      The situation is one where the anglers have their doubts about such matters. Lawyers, no doubt, see everything with greater certainty. However, the people who will be taking the samples will be the same people as today, and there is to our minds little guarantee, given that the NRA will have a discretion, that we can necessarily rely on getting samples of quality and type necessary for a successful prosecution. Whatever view other people may take of the chances of success at law, the ACA is not in the business of frivolous litigation and goes to court only when it has the evidence which will make it possible to win and it is confident that it will win. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would touch on that point in his reply.
      The Central Council for Physical Recreation also has reservations, and I expect my hon. Friend will have seen a letter sent to his hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) by the CCPR on 22 March about the code of practice. Without going into that at length, I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give the House some assurance on how the Secretary of State intends to ensure that water undertakers comply with the code of practice and the maintenance of existing recreations, which some people fear may be at risk. Of course, if we cannot get assurances tonight because of lack of time, there will be an

      103
      opportunity to return to these matters in another place, and perhaps then the Government will explain why they found my amendment No. 80 so unattractive the other night.
      I find it difficult to believe that the NRA does not want to be responsive or flexible and is not prepared to have the opportunity to delegate some of its powers, and I find it odd that there should be resistance to this from the Department without our necessarily being told what the view of the NRA is. In this legislation we are creating an important body, and we should spell out the duties we expect it to perform in this area, and on the question of abstraction, which also causes concern.
      I am anxious, as I said, to be brief, and I have little more to say except to question the realism of the statements made by the hon. Member for Copeland about the assets of the water authorities and the extent to which they might be turned to private profit. I do not believe there is a prospect of mass asset-stripping or great areas of land being sold at a profit. However, I believe there is one asset nobody has so far identified which is capable of being exploited and which we should all wish to see exploited, and that is the physical access this industry enjoys to every property which it serves. That access does not, it seems to me, have to be used either to pipe water in or to pipe sewage out.
      There is little doubt in my mind that an asset of that kind could be used in other ways of profit and value to the community. It is not impossible that it could be used in such a way as to provide competition in information business technology with British Telecom, and I think we might very well see new owners, enterprising people, taking an opportunity which has been available to our own companies for far too long without being noticed—though I suspect the French have noticed it. I hope entrepreneurs in our own country will take it up and that it will be used to the value of the customers of the water industry.
      I have no doubt that this is a necessary Bill, and I believe that it should have the support of the House and of the country.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Livsey: The Water Bill is the ultimate folly of a Government hell-bent on imposing their dogmatic will on a long-suffering British public. The time has long since passed when we can appeal with any sense of reason to members of the Government, whose misuse of their parliamentary majority is now virtually complete.
      What does this Bill do? Part II replaces the 10 public monopolies in England and Wales with 10 private monopolies, the plcs, and they will indeed be ring-fenced in their own areas; in part I of the Bill a National Rivers Authority will be created, which will remain in the public sector. That is the basis of the Bill. The water so essential for life itself will not remain a public utility, even though the Government's Victorian predecessors thought that was right. Indeed, it was the Government's predecessors in my party who put the water industry into the public sector in the first place. Water, indeed, is essential for life itself, which makes it a natural public utility, yet it is not to remain a public utility.
      Mr. John Marshall: The hon. Gentleman implies that public ownership of water is
      104
      necessary for the health of the nation and many other factors. Can he explain how people in other countries survive and prosper with private sector water?
      Mr. Livsey: Taking the example of France, the price of water is four times higher in some parts of France than in others, and I cannot see that the people there entirely benefit from that situation.
      Of course, the reasons why water should clearly remain in the public sector involve the health and social conditions of the people of this country. They should have clean, wholesome and affordable drinking water. Surely these are the basic objectives. The only tenable fallback position, if one could justify it, is the model of the current statutory water companies which presently operate in 25 per cent. of the water industry. They are closely controlled in the public interest and produce affordable water through ploughing back profits to help keep consumers' bills down.
      Mr. Ashby rose——
      Mr. Livsey: However, the Government have chosen to dismember them and to turn them into plcs instead, already with pre-privatisation increases of 30 to 50 per cent. in the price of water.
      The environmental impact of privatisation will affect clean drinking water standards, the disposal of sewage, the cleanliness of beaches and continued access to the half million acres which the present water authorities own.
      The Government's reasons for privatising water seem to rest on the following ideological formula. They say that the NRA will control pollution and improve standards; that private investment will bring more money into the industry to clean up drinking water and sewage disposal; that the industry will be freed; that more people will own shares; that the City wishes to invest in the industry, and that the industry will be better regulated.
      The facts are that the NRA could be involved just as well as an environmental protection agency if water remained in the public sector. The problem is that the NRA will be under-funded. Indeed, a privatised water industry will only be attractive to the City and to investors if it is made financially attractive, and the only way of doing that is to make consumers pay more for their water than if the industry remained in the public sector. The soundest estimates indicate the price of water will double by 1992.
      The other part of the equation is that valuable public assets, such as land, will have to be sold and access charged for. The taxpayer and the consumer will, of course, pay for this. Even if this is done, the City is unlikely to find water an attractive investment, because up to £6 billion will be required to clean up the industry; the maximum sale price is unlikely to be more than £10 billion, so what kind of deal is that for the City? The argument that the industry will be freed by disposing of its debt could equally apply if the water authorities' debts were written off now while the industry remained in the public sector. Our water bills would be a lot cheaper if that were done.
      A Director General of Water Services, for regulation purposes, could just as easily have been installed if the industry remained in the public sector, so that argument is demolished too. The thesis that more people will own shares does not reflect recent experience, where it has been shown that most shares still tend to end up in the hands of relatively few people.

      105
      The Government have turned water privatisation on its head. They have decided, come what may, to privatise water and have then dug up convenient reasons to try to justify the unjustifiable.
      Mr. Nicholas Baker: The hon. Gentleman made the interesting point that it was not necessary to privatise the water companies and he implied that it was perfectly possible for NRA to police water authorities maintained in the public sector. Has that proposition any basis in fact? Can the hon. Gentleman name any other area in our society where public bodies can adequately police each other? Is it not a fact that such bodies in the public sector get together cosily and the customer suffers in the end?
      Mr. Livsey: The present pollution inspectorate of the water industry would fill the niche that the hon. Gentleman is describing.
      The Secretary of State for Wales has said that he would like to see Welsh people owning Welsh Water shares. We would like to see that too. However, there is no sign that that will happen. On 21 March a grand three-helicopter tour of Wales was undertaken by representatives of such well-known Welsh banking forms as Smith Newcourt, Kleinwort Benson, Salamon Brothers, Alexander Lang and Scrimgeour, Cazenove and Company, Citicorp, County NatWest, Shrive Lehman and Company, Phillips and Drew and, just to sweeten the pill, the Cardiff stockbroking firm of Lyddon and Company.
      Given the Secretary of State's penchant for public relations, it is strange that such an exercise by Welsh Water was not the subject of headlines in the Welsh media. Perhaps the subject was just a little too sensitive at that time since the Bill was being debated in the House at that moment. I hope that the bankers enjoyed the scenery—97,000 acres represents quite a lot of Wales and quite a lot of Welsh real estate. We know, too, that computers in Scottish banks are already programmed to print Water plc shares. What kind of pre-emption is that? The Bill has not yet completed its progress through the House.
      The Government want the Bill to be a truimph of dogma over common sense. We know that water will become unaffordable for many of the poorest in society after privatisation. There is no way that the Government can deny that. There were 9,000 disconnections last year and there will surely be more in the future.
      According to the opinion polls, water privatisation is opposed by 75 per cent. or more of the British people, including many Conservative supporters. Make no mistake about it, water privatisation will damage our health. Water privatisation will annexe public assets and give the taxpayers' investment to the wealthy. It will produce a private monopoly with no competition—inexcusable even by Tory standards.
      Water privatisation will damage the environment and double the price of consumers' water, hitting the poorest in society. It will cost £842 million just to privatise water and the British people will pay that bill. It will be a poor investment because of its liabilities. Water privatisation will remove the last vestiges of local government democratic representation in the water industry. There will be no public accountability.
      Water privatisation is a rotten measure by a Government who have gone several privatisations too far.
      106
      They will surely pay the political price in the ballot box. God gave the water to the people and the Government are taking it away from them.
      7.24 pm
      Sir Giles Shaw: I do not want to follow the example of the Eisteddfod contribution of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey), but I am prepared to tell my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning that I support the Bill and I have five reasons for doing so.
      First, I must pay tribute to the history of the water industry through its many years of municipal undertaking. That is a proud heritage for those of us who represent northern seats where the fine reservoirs produced on the back of the woollen industry are still some of the greatest architectrural achievements of the 19th century. Municipal leadership was a fine contributor to the effectiveness of the British water industry for the first 50 or so years of this century.
      There has been a dramatic change, because local authorities and local government have changed. The disappearance of the many utilities in favour of the mega-utilities and local government reorganisation made a fundamental difference to the municipal contact between water supply and the authorities. With that came high-pressure politics of a different kind and a substantial period of neglect for the water utilities. Water had to take its place among municipal priorities, and it was a pretty lowly place as one sees from the total neglect of the reassessment and renewal of assets.
      With the development of local government reorganisation came the reorganisation of the water authorities as we have them today. I confess that I remain firmly of the view that the scale of the water authorities as presently constituted is a perfectly effective way of managing water resources. They have the geographical spread to enable the supplies to be most effectively managed. They measure the water cycle as their base. They provide services way beyond the reach of a local authority, even a large one. It is no use in Yorkshire looking back to municipalising the water industry on the basis of the three-county structure and the fourth county of Humberside and a little bit of Cleveland—all of which are within the catchment of the Yorkshire water authority. Municipalisation is not available as an alternative for discussion in the House, although it has played a major part in the handling of the water industry.
      Water authorities are within the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, and the Secretary of State has powers to determine their capital allowances, pricing policies and most of the strategies and priorities that the individual authorities would wish to adopt. But we must never forget that they are 10 very different authorities. They are different geographically. They have different resource problems and resource management. They have a different pattern of demand and very different problems of foul water and sewage treatment. They have different demands and patterns of drainage.
      That means that they inevitably have different capital demands. They have different priorities and rates of development. All depend on the whim of Government: expenditure and Government control. It is that single fact which brings me to my first reason for believing that the

      107
      Bill is right. Until the authorities get outwith the control of Government, they will not be able to manage and develop their assets on a long-term basis without intervention.
      The case can be made for central control. In replying to an earlier debate, the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) made it clear that the next Labour Government would take the authorities back into what he loosely termed social ownership public control. But the case for bringing them back into public control by the Government is even thinner than that for going back to municipal control. Surely the water industry must now be recognised for what it is—a modern, effective, well-managed range of public utilities. It is a capital-intensive industry, operating scientifically controlled systems for the distribution of pure water, with a complicated computerised system for cleansing foul water by biological and chemical processes. In addition, it has a high standard of efficiency.
      When one thinks that the water industry has had to contend with a rapid growth in demand not only from the ownership of houses and of the developments that that brings but from changes in industrial technologies that require huge uses of water, one would have to be remarkably complacent to argue that the water industry has sold the country short. It has not. It has managed to keep pace with domestic demand created by the washing machine, the car wash, and all the other demands made on the public water supply by domestic consumption, for a daily cost that currently averages 29p to 30p per household, not per person. For that cost to be regarded in 1989 as a significant impost for an amenity that, as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor was so keen to argue, is essential, irreplaceable and God-given, is absurd. A cost of lop per day for each individual is far from high. No one can deny that the water industry has made that possible by its policy of developing new technologies and new effort.
      The major argument for privatisation is that it will allow a major service industry that has long outlived its municipal founders and has outgrown its need for central Government constraints to take its place in the private sector. That is the main reason for the Bill, and it is why the Bill deserves, and will have, my support. I do not believe that the statutory water company is a relevant model to the scale of the water authorities, their regional basis, and the range of services that they currently provide. They are not a model for what a locally based statutory company can do. It must differ radically in its management skills and experience, and in the range of the assets that it can produce.
      Mr. Nicholas Baker: My hon. Friend refers to the great record of water authorities in coping with increased demand arising from developments in certain parts of the country. Does he agree that a connection charge, which is now subject to discussion, would benefit privatised water companies in providing a good service to the consumer and ensure equity between existing consumers and the developers of new housing estates, which would be highly desirable and a fair innovation?
      Sir Giles Shaw: I entirely support my hon. Friend. I was glad to note that in a recent speech my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning said that he was still looking for a way of putting such a provision into
      108
      the Bill. I wish him well. I hope that he will not be put off by the fact that it will be difficult and that officials say that it is impossible. Good political leadership of the kind that I am sure my hon. and learned Friend can provide should see such a measure put in the Bill.
      The second reason for privatisation is that it will allow the regional quality of water authorities to develop when they become plcs, providing an important opportunity for regionalisation to take a lead. The regions have their different needs and priorities, and I welcome the prospect of strong regional shareholdings in the regional plcs. I should like to see not only preferential treatment given in the flotation plans to employees and customers, as I am sure is my hon. and learned Friend's view, but a proportion of the stock made available only to regional investing markets, such as Birmingham, Newcastle and Leeds, so that we may ensure that there will be a placement of stock to the benefit of local institutions and companies. Until now, far too little attention has been paid in privatisation to the regional markets. We are presented with a classic opportunity to put that right.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that proper representation of regional interests currently exists but with the Bill as it stands the probability is that, in future, the regions well represented will be foreign and not British. Is that not a valid criticism, and one which argues in favour of the current arrangement being retained?
      Sir Giles Shaw: The hon. Gentleman will understand that there is a golden share, which is designed to prevent the development that he mentions. However, I agree with him in principle. I am not one who believes that the Battle of Britain was won on the motto "Per ardua ad Perrier". We should do what we can, by strengthening regional shareholdings, for example, to make it very difficult for French investors to obtain shareholdings in this country.
      Ten separate regional businesses will be established, offering a unique and imaginative opportunity that I trust the Government will prosecute vigorously, so ensuring that at least one aspect of water privatisation will have much more public acceptability than at present.
      The third reason for privatisation is that it will allow British water management and technology to compete across the world. It is an amazingly large market. In my brief time at the Department of the Environment, I took the first British water mission overseas. We went to the French Cameroons.
      Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: And drank the water there?
      Sir Giles Shaw: I recall that the president resigned the first day that I was there.
      The French Cameroons desperately needed new technology, because its cities failed to comprehend that most of their population lived below the water level. The overseas market for British technology can be released only after the industry's privatisation. That is exactly what should be done. If we accept EC standards, as we are required to do, it should be recognised that our water industry has developed against a history of fast-flowing rivers for the transportation of drinking water as well as for the disposal of sewage and of foul water. The way in

      109
      which continental standards are to be applied seems to ignore our particular aquatic advantages, which we seek to retain.
      The fourth reason for privatisation is that it fits extremely well into the Government's policies for its third term of office. Our first term was dedicated to containing inflation, restoring sensible economic policies, and releasing industry and commerce so that it could expand on the basis of competitive quality and price. Managements were given the power to manage, and unions were made accountable to their own members. In our second term, we took great advantage of the public sector by returning it to the private sector, and in industry and in housing there was a massive increase in capital ownership. We have substantially spread the benefits of ownership, and with that has come a greatly reduced demand for tax revenue. Now is the time, in the Government's third term, to tackle major social issues such as health, education, social provision and the environment.
      The Government's environmental policies are epitomised by the Water Bill. Only now can we afford evironmental policies of that kind. The environment is one of the most expensive areas in which to legislate and in which to create change. The water environment in particular requires the massive release of resources and an unshackling from the controls that have been applied at a municipal or central Government level in the past. There will be changes in respect of conservation, access and sporting uses, and there will have to be better provision and more flexible policies.
      There will undoubtedly be increased costs, in terms not only of the investment that is still required but of ensuring higher standards of river quality, drinking water quality, and of amenities. At a current daily cost of 29p to 30p per household, we are not paying enough for the range of services that we enjoy. I shall be very happy to see increases in water charges, if they bring with them the scale of benefits that. I am sure that a new and environmentally sensitive policy will bring.
      For something that is as important as water, we should be asking how its price per head compares with the other amenities that the British consumer enjoys. Is 10p per head per day enough? Is that a reasonable price to pay for four or five gallons of water per head? Should it be 12p or 15p? In relation to the cost of other amenities that the consumer currently enjoys, water is excessively cheap. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen may roar, and they are entitled to do that, but there is no doubt that water in this country is cheap and that we are perfectly entitled to say that, given the controls being placed on price by the National Rivers Authority and the director general, some increases will be essential and that we should not try to destroy those increases when they are proposed.
      My fifth and final reason is that this has been a commitment that the Government have undertaken for a considerable time. We made it an election commitment the last time we went to the country. It is something which has been worked on for a long time. I am confident that now is the right time to proceed. But if we have confidence in the Bill, I am bound to say that we look to the Government for a further demonstration of their own confidence in the industry.
      For example, I am not satisfied with merely a 51 per cent. hold on water privatisation. Why cannot it be 100 per
      110
      cent., particularly as we now have provision for golden shares and so on? Why cannot 100 per cent. of the water equity be made available? Why confine it to 51 per cent.?
      We must also ensure that in the way in which the National Rivers Authority and the director general control the private sector water companies there is a fair relationship between the two. I hope very much that the NRA will not be a large, central, bureaucratic body but will break down into regional authorities and that this regional representation will have a much closer link with the water plcs than is perhaps envisaged in the Bill. If that comes about, as we look to water privatisation being fulfilled, there will be a genuine meeting in the regions between the controllers and companies to see that both get a fair share of the hearing that is necessary before controls are implemented to the disadvantage of either.
      All in all, water privatisation is a sensible measure. The Bill is a sensible way of taking it, and I wish it well.
      Several Hon. Members rose——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has appealed for brief speeches.
      7.41 pm
      Mr. Tom Pendry: I will adhere to Mr. Speaker's request for brevity. As one who represents a north-west constituency and is sponsored by the National Union of Public Employees, which has many thousands of members employed in the water industry, I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that the Bill ensures that the people have to pay a high price for Tory dogma, because the Bill is part of an ideological crusade and has nothing whatever to do with water quality or efficiency.
      After all, this labour-intensive industry has a pretty good productivity record. Productivity has risen by over 33 per cent. in the past decade, yet the cost to the consumer is, on average, six times cheaper than in West Germany and four times cheaper than in France.
      Unlike the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) I take great pride in the fact that we produce cheaper water. I hope that the Pudsey Times will pick up that bit of his speech to make it clear that he is in favour of higher prices for water. The water industry even exceeded the target rate of return on assets set by the Government last year by a factor of one third.
      This is, therefore, an efficient industry, staffed by workers who care for it. So why must the Government meddle with it, force prices up, reduce pollution safeguards and introduce diseconomies of scale by more than doubling the number of water and sewerage authorities? On top of this is the attack on the workers in the industry themselves. I give one clear example—and I hope that the Minister of State is listening.
      I was given an assurance in a written answer from the Under Secretary of State that workers would have the right to a pension scheme with the same benefits and contributions as at present. The Under-Secretary of State said:
      "existing employees will have the right to remain in a pension scheme with the same benefits, and requiring the same contributions, as the Local Government Superannuation Scheme, of which they are members. Any provisions necessary to secure this position will be included in the legislation to privatise the water authorities."—[Official Report, 16 November 1987; Vol. 122, c. 417.]

      111
      What do we find in the Bill? Water employees will be able either to keep their existing pension scheme when they move into a new private company or join a new and so-called "improved" scheme. The catch is that the old scheme will have its index-linked benefit removed and the new scheme will not replace it. For the Government to have refused to guarantee the pension benefits accumulated over decades by NUPE and other members is a disgrace. The Minister clearly misled me, the House and, more important, thousands of workers in the industry with that reply in November 1987. Perhaps the Minister, who is now looking to his officials, will tell us why he misled us all on that occasion.
      It is clear what sort of water industry we shall be faced with, should this Bill be enacted. It will be one that skimps and muddles through at the expense, not only of consumers, but of water workers as well, because it is clear that the £250 million saved from index-linking will be used to sweeten privatisation.
      The changes will be worst of all in the area that some of my colleagues and I represent in the north-west. My region has not only the oldest and most decrepit infrastructure in the country but by far the largest landholding. My constituents will doubly lose out, from a lack of investment and a loss of open land. Of the 150,000 acres of water company land, a substantial proportion is in or next to my own constituency. New, profit-motivated water companies will be under pressure to dispose of land which is declared non-operational. I have no doubt that as soon as water is privatised we shall see vast tracts of unspoilt land declared non-operational and sold for a large profit, a profit which will not be passed on to our constituents by way of cheaper water bills.
      The Government claim that recreation will be safeguarded in this Bill, not least by the National Rivers Authority. This is the same National Rivers Authority that the Secretary of State has said should employ as few people as possible. How on earth can a small body with its hands tied keep tabs on pollution discharges, on water quality and on recreational use throughout the country?
      It is not, perhaps, surprising that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) is connected with the Bill. After all, he is doing his level best to demolish our national sport of soccer with his ridiculous Football Spectators Bill. As has already been stated in Committee, I would not be surprised, if he has his way, to see turnstiles installed on country walks, cliffs fenced off for use by climbers with ID cards and reservoirs surrounded by barbed wire to stop people fishing. He really ought to listen to his former friends at the Central Council for Physical Recreation. They are particularly worried that their demands for statutory safeguards for recreation have been ignored, particularly in regard to the fate of the 190 reservoirs used for fishing and water sports. The Minister responsible for sport should be ashamed that he was unable to persuade his unsporting boss or bosses of the merits of the CCPR case.
      The other place, however, may well come to our rescue, not for the first time, to stop this potentially damaging Bill becoming law. I believe that there is a case to be heard as to whether this Bill is hybrid. I hope that the Government will give considerable thought to that possibility, as will, I am sure, the House of Lords.
      112
      My own council of Tameside is investigating a possible loophole in the Bill. My authority has certain historic rights through the ownership of the lordship of the manor of Mottram in Longdendale, an area containing much water authority land. The ownership of this manor and its rights can be traced back to Henry VIII; the rights, which were reserved indefinitely in 1922, include fishing, grazing, wood collection and even turf cutting on the land. These historic rights, bequeathed to the people of the aera, surely cannot be usurped by a private water company. The land was originally removed from a Sir William Stanley, a knight of the area, who was found guilty of high treason. As one who does not believe in capital punishment, I would draw back from suggesting that the Secretary of State and his Ministers should encounter the same fate as Sir William for their part in this treasonable Bill, but they should and will get their come-uppance from the electorate. The Prime Minister, judging from her public utterances on the way in which this measure has been promoted by her Ministers, is only too well aware of that probability.
      The Bill will continue to be opposed by Opposition Members as the dangerous, damaging nonsense that it is. More importantly, as every poll shows, it will be opposed by the millions of our electors who believe that water is essential to life itself and must remain a public service.
      7.50 pm
      Mr. Beaumont-Dark: This Bill is the most recent in a long line of privatisation measures. I agree with privatisation as a philosophy. I think that it is nonsense for the state to own assets for the sake of owning them. That becomes an ideology only when the assets can be sold and used for better purposes. Privatisation of, for instance, British Airways, British Telecom and the Trustee Savings Bank—and in due course, I hope, British Rail and British Coal—is, in my view, acceptable and fair. The sensible criterion applied to all our privatisations so far has been the existence of another source of supply—the existence of competition—and clearly competition will exist following the privatisations of British Coal and British Rail.
      I did not understand the Minister—I often do not understand him, although I am sure that that is my loss—when he said that British Gas was a monopoly. Heating can be provided by oil, electricity or even Calor gas. The reason why I have voted for privatisation until now is that I dislike state monopolies, quite apart from not liking the state to tell anyone what he should or should not do. If I dislike state monopolies because they stand astride people's lives, I dislike private monopolies even more. Private sector involvement helps efficiency where there is competition, because a private person needs to make a profit to make investment in the service worth while.
      Ministers speak of erecting walls. In the City, Chinese walls were proposed. I do not doubt Ministers' good faith, but private companies will attempt to climb such walls and even to demolish them, and in the main they will succeed. That is the spirit of the animal of free enterprise, and there is nothing wrong with it when competition is there to hold it in check.
      With respect to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey), it is not a good argument to say that water comes from Heaven. Unfortunately it does, usually on bank holidays, but that is not an argument for it remaining in the public domain. Water, as we all know,

      113
      must be treated, and it costs hundreds of millions of pounds before it reaches our tanks. If state monopolies are to be feared, I tremble before private monopolies. That is why I believe that the Government are wrong, although I have supported them on every privatisation issue until now.
      Let me say in all seriousness that the water in Birmingham is not the Government's to sell. Back in the mid-1800s, Joe Chamberlain borrowed tens of millions of pounds because Birmingham's water was foetid, as was most water. By 1850 Birmingham had more direct sewerage and cleaner water than that great empire of the sun in Japan has today. Birmingham's ratepayers were put in hock so that the people could have good water. All the water that we have—in the Elan valley, and everywhere else in Wales—was paid for out of Birmingham ratepayers' money, freely negotiated.
      I was chairman of finance when we were discussing what we would do when the Severn-Trent water authority was set up. It was agreed that we would go along with it, but that it would remain under local government control. Now, however, that agreement has been swept aside unilaterally, because we all know that Governments can do what they——
      Mr. Ashby: Has my hon. Friend compared the colour of Birmingham's water with that of the water in, for example, London? Has he observed that the water in Birmingham is brown, and has been for about 120 years? That water is in the public sector. Is not the reason the lack of necessary investment over the years, and is that not why this Bill is such a good Bill? Has my hon. Friend not considered the people of Birmingham?
      Mr. Beaumont-Dark: With the greatest respect, the only reason that I can think of for my hon. Friend's argument that Birmingham's water is brown is that he puts too much whisky in his water. It is patent nonsense. My hon. Friend may get away with conning juries, but he could not get away with conning the people of Birmingham in that way.
      We agreed that, as long as it remained under proper control, we would go into the Severn-Trent. Now we are going to sell it off because the Government insist. Quite rightly, if they can get Bills through the House, Governments can do what they will. We feel, however, that much of the money invested at the expense of Birmingham ratepayers needs to be spent to combat some of the problems experienced by Birmingham, as by other cities. If the Government wish to be honest to people, they should recognise that—if cost inflation is taken into account—Birmingham is being robbed of over £500 million of ratepayers' money. That is an incontrovertible fact. This concern is not the Government's to sell. If they insist in bludgeoning such a Bill through the House, they should at least be honourable enough—as I know that they will be in the end—to ensure that Birmingham people at least get back what they invested.
      I believe that the Bill is fundamentally flawed. It will be not only flawed but dishonoured if, having broken unilaterally an agreement reached in fairness, we proceed in this way. If the Birmingham ratepayers, who looked after Birmingham's people properly for more than 140 years, find that what we did in honour has been dishonoured by a subsequent Government, I do not think that they will understand—and nor will anyone else who appreciates the ethics of business.
      8 pm
      Mr. Gareth Wardell: This House is known throughout the world as the mother of parliaments. As Members, we cherish the example and traditions of our democracy that for centuries Britain has spread throughout the world. Yet today we are debating a Bill which is opposed by at least three quarters of the people of this country.
      The polls show that at least three out of every four people oppose this sell-off of water, and nothing that the Government have said, from the time the proposals contained in the measure were first announced, has changed the public's position over the unsoundness of the step that is now being taken.
      If the Government had any concern for the wishes of the people, the Bill would have been abandoned long ago. Instead, as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) pointed out, complacent in their majority in the House, they have chosen to abandon their responsibility for large sectors of public health and environmental protection inherent in the water industry.
      Increasing water pollution in Britain is one of the major concerns of those of us who care about our environment and that of future generations. It is one of those few areas of environmental concern where we can, as a nation, clean up our own backyard without reference to, or co-operation with, other countries. Yet despite their professed concern, the Government have chosen to wash their hands of the responsibility for halting and reducing the gross pollution of our rivers and seas.
      No matter how much the Government wriggle and postulate about public spending 15 or 20 years ago, it is a fact that, when the Government introduced external financial limits on the water industry in 1981 and subsequently, they deprived water authorities of the wherewithal to invest adequately in schemes to cope with the pressures of pollution of rivers and seas.
      Britain's rivers, the first in the world to be polluted by effluent from sprawling towns and industries during the industrial revolution, governed only by laissez-faire light-handedness, were the first to be cleaned up by public spending and investment. Now they are being fouled again at an unprecedented rate.
      About one tenth of our rivers have degenerated to class 3 and 4, being polluted or unable to sustain marine life. The number of cases of river pollution in England and Wales increased last year to 23,000, nearly double the 1982 figure. Obviously, when one third of the nation's drinking water is extracted from those rivers, there is an increased risk to public health, either from the water or from the additives that are put into it to make it safe to drink. Obviously, there is a danger to fish stocks and marine life. Obviously, our environmental heritage and facilities for water-based recreations are being limited.
      The Government have responded by increasingly limiting the amount that local authorities can spend to deal with the problem. The Government have reduced their pollution inspectorate, cut funds and opportunities for research and failed to legislate to ensure that polluters pay for their actions.
      Now that the EEC has stepped in and said that they must find £1·6 billion to obtain minimum standards of pollution control, the Government have designed a way of selling off that responsibility. The Government can find

      115
      £10 billion to repay some of the national debt. They cannot—no, they will not—find £1·6 billion of investment to halt the decline in water quality that they have overseen.
      This sell-off of responsibility will be subsidised by all of us. An industry independently valued at £27 billion will be disposed of for between £5 billion and £7 billion. What a gesture. How sweet it must be to operate on such a grand scale. On our behalf, a £20 billion discount is being given—that on behalf of 75 per cent. of the electorate who oppose it.
      It is a pity that the grand scale obscures little, nitty-gritty problems that are inherent in the Bill and that would cost little to put right. They would certainly not cost billions of pounds. I refer, for example, to unadopted and unadoptable sewers.
      Because the water authority criteria for adopting sewers, laid down in 1974, were allowed to differ from building regulation requirements; because developers were quick to maximise profit and slow to improve standards; and because local authorities were not empowered to enforce section 18 agreements on developers in planning permissions, hundreds of thousands of householders are left today with sewers serving their properties which are not, and which can never be, adopted, for example because pipes are too small or because they cross private land. Those householders face increasing costs to repair and maintain those sewers.
      The Government were set for a blanket adoption of those sewers in the Bill, but they changed their mind. Now they appear to be saying that householders should have known about the problem and that, if they did not, their solicitor was negligent in not informing them. I gather that I should now advise my constituents—2,500 of them in one district authority alone in the area—that they should sue their solicitor. It promises to be interesting.
      But the Government, set on their grand sell-off, have their mind on higher things. One is the NRA, which the Government claim is their passport to the greatness of the greens. The Government have established the NRA to monitor river and coastal pollution. It is ironic that they should have established it at a time when they will not have to provide the money to run it.
      We are told that the NRA will monitor pollution and ensure that the polluter pays. I fail to see how that will be brought about. The legal maximum penalties for polluters, such as industry and farmers, are inadequate to the point of ridicule. Water authorities are virtually exempt from prosecution. Yet one in five of Britain's sewage works is breaking the law by discharging sub-standard waste into rivers. Untreated sewage leaks into rivers from 5,000 recorded sites. Storm overflows are exempt from all controls, yet in periods of heavy rainfall they deposit tons of untreated waste and sewage into seas and rivers.
      The Bill allows water plcs to maintain indefinitely their privilege of non-prosecution. Water authorities do not prosecute themselves. Once the Bill becomes law, the NRA will not be able to prosecute. The Government say that the water industry pollutes too often and on such a large scale that it would be unreasonable to expect it to stop. So much for the powers of the NRA. The NRA will be unable to do anything, other than complain, about this form of pollution.
      116
      It is reasonable for the public to expect that, when shareholders grab control of the water industry—when water charges increase to make up for the lack of past investment—those shareholders should have definite responsibilities for ending this scale of pollution.
      I am cynical about this whole Bill. My cynicism derives from many many factors, but I will mention just one. For many years after the issue of the EC directive on bathing waters in 1976, the Department of the Environment defined a bathing beach in such a way that, in Wales for example, there was not a single bathing beach to which that directive could apply. My cynicism continues. Responsibility, as opposed to ideology, is not prominent in the Government's vocabulary, but it is understood that responsibility—or lack of it—is what this Bill is about. That is why three in four people oppose it. That is why we call on the Government, even now, to abandon these proposals and to allow common sense and the public interest to prevail.
      8.11 pm
      Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: At the last election I declared my opposition to proposals to nationalise—and I mean nationalise—the water and sewage disposal industry. We have heard a lot about privatisation, but it may be that some of my hon. Friends do not realise that this is the largest nationalisation measure that any Conservative Government will ever have passed.
      When the question of privatising water was first mooted several years ago, I kept pointing out in the House that, unlike any of the other industries that were to be privatised—industries whose equity was vested in Ministers of the Crown—this one was not owned by the Government. This Bill, first of all, nationalises the entire water and sewage disposal industry, so all my colleagues who vote for the Third Reading tonight will be voting for the largest nationalisation measure ever offered to the House by any Conservative Government—and it is well that they should realise that. I certainly shall not be voting for it.
      Privatisation only follows prior nationalisation under this measure. When I say that, it is not vested in any Minister. As has been pointed out already, in the representative case it was paid for in the first place by local authorities, or by combinations of local authorities, which raised the money by means of loans, and serviced those loans and repaid them by charges on the ratepayers—not just on the users of water and sewers. That was when the systems were owned by local authorities.
      Of course, it is not true, as some facile hon. Members would have us believe, that water is in free supply—it most certainly is not. The cost of impounding it, the cost of pumping it, the cost of the distribution system, the cost of renewing old, inadequate and rotten distribution and sewerage systems, are immense, so a lot of investment is required to replace the rotten water supply systems and the inadequate and rotten sewerage systems. But we do not have to have this Bill in order to get the external financing limits that are necessary to do that. We do not have to have this Bill, lock, stock and barrel, in order to have a National Rivers Authority, with its functions; we could perfectly easily have had a Bill separating the functions of policing and inspection from the functions of supply and

      117
      distribution. That arrangement would most certainly have had me in the Division Lobby voting for it. It would have been an entirely sensible thing to do.
      The greatest single benign characteristic of the Water Act 1973 was that it brought together the supply of water and the disposal of water after it had been used. The previous absurdity was that some authorities poured effluent, more or less—very often less, rather than more—purified, into rivers, and lower down the system other authorities extracted the water in order to supply it as allegedly fresh water. Of course it made sense to amalgamate those two functions. Unfortunately, what the 1973 Act did was make the poacher and the gamekeeper the same person—and that arrangement has never worked.
      Anyone who lived through the torment of the pollution of the fresh water supply in north Cornwall, for instance, will know what I mean. I do not believe that the South West water authority prosecuted itself, although, quite rightly, it prosecutes others for polluting the public water supply. The NRA, if it is to be other than a laughing stock, will have to have ministerial sanction—not only sanction, but encouragement—to prosecute the water and sewerage authorities if they do not reach the necessary standards of purity. But how separate will the gamekeeper be from the poacher? In many areas the gamekeeper will not have his own laboratory for testing the water supply and the effluent, and will have to use the poacher's laboratory.
      Mr. Boateng: We should have had the hon. Member on the Committee.
      Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: If I had been on the Committee the Bill might not have come out of it quite so quickly.
      Of course those functions are different. I would not wish to say that water companies will set out to supply polluted water. Of course they will not, because, unlike the present system—under which, if the authority is sued, it is the consumers who pay—if a private owner is sued, it is the shareholders who will suffer. That is certainly benign.
      I could have been persuaded to support this measure if all the revenue, all the receipts from the sale of these assets, were to be recycled into defraying the cost of meeting the purification standards for water and sewerage effluent, of cleaning up our beaches and of replacing the hundreds of thousands of miles of rotten water-pipes and sewerage pipes that are either rotten or of inadequate diameter. If the money had been recycled for those purposes the Bill could have had my reluctant support; but the fact is that it is not so. It is the consumers who will be charged with the cost of bringing sewage effluent treatment and of piping and disposal up to the standards rightly required by the EEC.
      We ought not to need the EEC to tell us what the standards should be. For years, mincing up turds and putting them into the sea as processed sewage really was a public scandal—"macerated" was the word that was used. I once swam out in a bay—I may say that it was in a holiday resort—to what I thought was a line of fishing floats, until I reached it and found that it was not.
      This Bill is a wasted opportunity. The opportunity could have been taken to set up a really effective National Rivers Authority to define the effluent standards and to enforce statutorily the separation of sewage from storm
      118
      water disposal. It is unforgivable that sewage works should overflow when there is a heavy downpour. The two systems should be different.
      Sir Charles Morrison: Is it not correct that the control of pollution could be carried out more swiftly and perhaps more efficiently by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, which is not of great age?
      Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: If the record of the alkali inspectorate had been such as to fill me with confidence, I might have found that an alluring suggestion. The case for setting up a new, independent inspectorate with its own testing facilities—not using those of some of the principal polluters—is very strong and unanswerable. That is what should have been in the Bill, instead of so much that is.
      Again, how does one balance—the Bill does not do it for us—the needs of different sectors of the United Kingdom? In Devon, the population doubles in summer at the time when river flows are at their minimum. The cost of providing impounding facilities to avoid drought when there is a maximum inflow of people who are not normal ratepayers and minium river flows is immense. That cost falls upon the people who live there all the time and who derive less and less benefit from tourism as more and more people bring their holiday homes with them. Instead of staying in hotels or other permanent accommodation. more and more visitors arrive with caravans and tents. with the result that they spend very little, some of which would otherwise go towards the extra infrastructure costs.
      Nobody but a fool provides a reservoir at a low level, with the result that all the water has to be pumped at hideous expense, if it can be placed much higher up where the water would flow by gravity. However, those who live in parts of the country to which other people like to go are told that reservoirs must not be put on the moors because that would spoil the view that visitors want to enjoy when they go on holiday. The people who say that do not, however, have to bear the additional expense of low-lying reservoirs from which all the water has to be pumped. There is no rectification of that issue in a Bill that is so large that it had to be printed in two physical parts because the staples would not go though it in one.
      At 10 o'clock, which is not so very far ahead, I shall he in the No Lobby. Those are some of the reasons why.
      8.23 pm
      Mr. Wigley: I agree with many of the points that have been made by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). The sea coast problems to which he referred are also faced by Wales. Wales also has to support a large population in summer and needs to have the capacity to supply it. Many of the additional costs that Wales has to face have to be borne in the south-west, too—in Devon in particular.
      The hybridity of the Bill was referred to earlier. The hon. Member for Tiveton did a lot of work some years ago on the question of hybridity. Between now and further consideration of the Bill elsewhere I hope that he will have the opportunity to consider whether this is a hybrid Bill. If he did so, he would be doing the House a service. He might be able to find a means by which to deflect the Bill from its movement towards the statute book.
      Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My dislike of monopolies is so great that I would not wish to have a monopoly in the detection and processing of hybridity.
      Mr. Wigley: I think that many hon. Members could sit at the knee of the hon. Member for Tiverton and learn about the intrigues and the ins and outs of hybridity, which we should not go into in too great a detail now unless we can prove it. I wish that we could.
      Wales did not vote for the Bill at the last election. Wales did not want it. It wants it even less now, the Bill having been subjected to weeks of debate in Committee. For once, Welsh Opposition Members were almost totally united, both in detail as well as in their general approach, in their opposition to the Bill. Week after week we put to the Government a central fallacy—the cost of water to the consumer. That point was not answered in Committee and it was not answered on Report.
      The Government tried to get away with press propaganda in Wales. They suggested early in March that there would be a massive reduction in the price of water. In a debate in this Chamber on 1 March, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales told the House:
      "Opposition Members may have a surprise coming to them because it is our intention to give the people of Wales every opportunity to take a stake in their own water company in a way that has not been possible before."—[Official Report, 1 March 1989; Vol. 148, c. 368.]
      That does not feature in the Bill, and there has been no suggestion as to how it may come about. The people of Wales will not have a 25 per cent. reduction in the price of water, although Ministers tried to sell it in the Welsh press. The reduction was then disowned during earlier debates on Report. In fact, there will be a massive increase in the price of water. It will be on top of other increases in recent years.
      During the last few days I have received a letter from someone who lives in the Aberdare area of Mid Glamorgan. This person pointed out that water rates have increased from £23 in 1981–82 to £107 in 1989–90—a fourfold increase. I prophesy, on the basis of what we were told in Committee, that the price of water will increase to about £250 by 1995. That is because there is a need, as everybody recognises, for considerable investment in the industry to improve standards. The Government argue that the only way to secure the resources that are necessary for the work that must be undertaken is to privatise the industry. The Opposition have argued time after time that the only way that capital funds can be attracted is by a massive increase in the price of water, an increase that would hit hard the poorest people in the community.
      There is a danger with privatisation that, as private companies find that they do not have the resources to attract capital, the degree of capital investment will be inadequate. That will have an effect on pollution, of which we in Wales are conscious—pollution in the industrial areas and along our coastline. There is a real danger that there will be a reduction in the capital investment that is so much needed in order to meet EEC standards and those that we ought to have set many years ago.
      In Committee we asked the Government to clarify the guarantees for shareholders, but the guillotine prevented discussion of amendments that would have led to a large slice of the shareholding going to consumers within the areas served by the private water companies and also to a slice of the shares going to the employees of the private water companies. The Government have made no such provision. Conservative Members who argue that the water industry will be answerable at regional level cannot guarantee that that will happen. Shareholdings will be subject to market fluctuations. Shares will be bought and
      120
      sold in order to make a profit or a long-term return. They will not be bought and sold to guarantee that the private water companies are answerable to the regions that they serve.
      The only way in which the finances of privatisation can add up is by the provision of a massive capital write-off of historic debt. If that debt is written off, why on earth was it not written off before, to bring down the water charges that people face? Perhaps for the only time during the passage of the Bill I want to disagree with the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey), who referred to the low disparity between charges in various parts of this country as compared with France. In fact, the average equated water rate in 1988–89 in Thames was 33p in the pound, in Severn-Trent 51p in the pound, in north-west England 59p in the pound—and in Wales, it was 108p in the pound. That is almost four times the rate in the Thames area. These charges are high and we are facing yet higher charges. If there is to be a capital write-off, why cannot there be one in the public sector?
      The capital value of the Welsh water authority is £1,700 million, and if, as seems likely, it is to be sold off for £250 million or £300 million, why do not the Government go the whole way and enable water consumers in Wales to have the shareholding at a nominal cost, and then at least guarantee that there is answerability in Wales? The same formula could apply to the regions of England.
      The other part of the Bill deals with the National Rivers Authority. All the Opposition parties argued in Committee that the Bill represents an unwanted and unwelcome centralisation of the Welsh water industry, with the establishment of the centralised form of the NRA. That is not to say that there was not a case for taking away powers from the plcs and giving them to the NRA, but they should not be given to a centralised body in London. That is to take away the powers that the Welsh water authority has over rivers. The version of the NRA in the Bill provides inadequate involvement for important groups who are concerned with rivers, such as anglers and other interest groups. There is also inadequate capital for the NRA, a subject that has already been touched on this evening.
      No doubt other hon. Members have received the letter that I have from Professor Edwards, the chairman of the regional rivers division of the Welsh water authority. On 22 March he wrote pressing that the NRA should be allowed
      "to have the benefit of long-term borrowing where this is necessary in order to carry out any of its statutory functions … the authority must have flexibility to use loan finance for all capital expenditure."
      Some progress was made on the issue of flooding earlier tonight, but the general argument has not been dealt with—and this letter was sent by someone who is involved in its detail.
      Many outside groups are unhappy with the Bill. The National Farmers Union of Wales has written:
      "Farmers are deeply concerned at the lack of control over the ability of the proposed private water companies operating as monopolies to raise their charges, particularly in rural area where their costs are higher."
      That was one of a number of concerns expressed to us by people who usually support the Conservatives and who are unhappy about these proposals.

      121
      Farmers and conservationists are fearful about clauses 7 and 9. Recreational bodies have fears about access to land—97,000 acres of it in Wales, forming a considerable part of the most beautiful areas there.
      There are still no adequate safeguards, despite recent Government statements, against the dangers of selling off. There are fears among environmentalists about the Bill's effect on pollution, and among the poverty lobby about its effects on disconnection and compulsory metering. There are fears in Wales that we shall once again be at the end of the queue and that the Bill will do nothing to help solve our problems or to redress the problems that Welsh water consumers have faced over the years.
      Although we have put an awful lot of time into it, the Bill leaves the House as unacceptable as it was back before Christmas. That is why my hon. Friends and I will most certainly vote against Third Reading.
      8.33 pm
      Mr. John Marshall: I have listened with great interest to a number of speeches in this debate. The speech by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) led me to assume that the once great internationalists and Europeans among the Democrats have now become the arch-chauvinists. The hon. Gentleman attacked the French with a venom that seemed like the reincarnation of the first Lord Beaverbrook.
      I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell). He complained about the quality of our water, the speed with which the Government reacted to the bathing-water directive, the quality of our rivers and the inadequate level of investment in the water industry. He seemed not to realise that every argument he put forward underlined, rather than undermined, the case for water privatisation. He is typical of many who oppose the Bill, those who continue to attack the consequences of the very status quo that they seek to defend. The hon. Gentleman seemed to forget that the problems of the water industry are the direct consequence of public ownership. His argument about the quality of our rivers was an argument for the National Rivers Authority.
      The problems of the water industry are aggravated by inadequate capital investment. That is an argument that Opposition Members should well understand; it was the Labour Government who cut investment in the water industry. As long as the water industry remains in public ownership, it will receive inadequate capital investment. So long as it has to compete with schools, hospitals, roads and railways, it will be starved of the investment that it needs. Once the industry is in the private sector, it will be able to tap the market in the same way as Cable and Wireless has done so successfully—it has increased its capital expenditure dramatically.
      I hope that, when my hon. and learned Friend finalises the details of the privatisation issue, he will give the privatised pits a decent dowry, and that a substantial proportion of the money raised by privatisation will be used to improve the balance sheets of the plcs so that they can invest substantially in the capital expenditure that is so necessary.
      We have heard from hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) about the problems of monopoly. He forgets that the water companies will be controlled much
      122
      more effectively in the private sector than in the public sector. The experience of British Telcom and British Gas shows that. No Secretary of State for Energy ever managed to control Sir Denis Rooke——
      Mr. Elliot Morley: Why, since British Telecom has been in the private sector, has the number of complaints from domestic and commercial users increased dramatically?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Not on Third Reading of the Water Bill.
      Mr. Marshall: I shall ignore that irrelevant and inaccurate interruption. My point about British Gas is that, when Sir Denis Rooke presided over a company in the public sector, Secretary of State after Secretary of State tried and failed to control him. Ofgas was the first body to control Sir Denis Rooke, and Oftel has worked, too——
      Mr. Beith: But British Gas had to be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
      Mr. Marshall: The important thing is that privatisation worked, and it will work with the water industry too——
      Mr. Boateng: It says here.
      Mr. Marshall: I write my own speeches. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman does, but I know from having listened to him in Harare yesterday that he spoke for more than an hour when he was billed to speak for less than half an hour.
      I welcome the possibility of water metering. The present system of charging for water is unfair. Why should the pensioner, consuming one third of the water consumed by her next-door neighbour, pay the same for that water? No one suggests that there should be a standard charge for electricity——
      Mr. Boateng: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Marshall: As long as the hon. Gentleman is briefer than he was yesterday.
      Mr. Boateng: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about the impact on the pensioner of the standing charge and will he urge the Secretary of State to amend this Bill in another place so that the pensioner is protected from the standing charge?
      Mr. Marshall: I happen to believe that the pensioner, who will already benefit substantially under the community charge, should be a substantial beneficiary of water metering. A pensioner household consumes very much less water than households with three or four children and sometimes with three or four wage-earners. Why should pensioners, as they do under the present system, pay substantially the same amount for water when they are consuming much less of it?
      I also believe that water metering would lead to much more economical use of water. When the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) was "Minister for Drought" in those long-lost days of the Labour Government, he was able to persuade people suddenly to reduce their consumption of water dramatically. I believe that, if we had water meters, there would he no need for a minister for drought to persuade people to use less water; the price mechanism would do it for him. Why should people pay for large amounts of water when

      123
      they are small consumers? It is surely much fairer that the pensioner and the single person should pay less than large households.
      The Water Bill is a Bill for greater efficiency. No one can regard the water industry under public ownership as a paragon of efficiency. Under private ownership, the water industry's prices will be controlled. The only way in which water companies will be able to increase profits is by becoming more efficient. Surely that is an objective we should all applaud and approve.
      I should like to ask the opponents of privatisation why it is that the Socialist President and Prime Minister of France have shown no enthusiasm for nationalising their water industry. The answer is simple: they understand that a water industry under private ownership is more likely to be efficient in providing the water the people need.
      Recently I read a speech by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) addressing the Scottish council of the SDP—I believe it is known as a cottage meeting. He said that the Water Bill was encouraging French companies to buy British water companies. He seemed to ignore the fact that there is a golden share to prevent the plcs from being acquired as soon as privatisation takes place. I was somewhat surprised to see the great former Foreign Secretary, the man who was the great European—[AN HON. MEMBER:"Who said he was great?"] He did; he was always telling us he was great. I was surpised to see him becoming the great chauvinist and the great opponent of the France.
      I believe that this Bill will provide the capital to modernise the water industry, clean up our rivers and improve our beaches. It is in the interests of the consumer, the efficiency of the industry and the environment and it should be warmly welcomed.
      8.44 pm
      Mr. Nigel Spearing: I hope that the speech of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) will be widely distributed, not only in Hendon but throughout the country, because it well illustrates many of the errors into which he and his hon. Friends have fallen, not least the Secretary of State, who I am very glad to see here. If I had the time, I would enlarge upon the point about the single user of water. We all use water for all sorts of purposes, and the single elderly pensioner requires cleanliness from everybody she meets and everyone who deals with food and the cleanliness of the community. Without pure, clean, cheap water public health would be at risk.
      When the House was built it relied on privatised water. I think that the Chelsea water company supplied it. Unfortunately, at that stage, when that water was used it disappeared with all its contents into the river and it was not until the 1860s that the Metropolitan Board of Works built the Victoria embankment, largely for intercepting sewers, and we had drainage in London.
      The Bill has three major aspects which so far have not featured largely in debates either in Committee or on Report. The first is that for the first time in history our foul water drainage and purification will be privatised. I believe that this is the first time that this has been tried anywhere in the world, but the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. Secondly, the private firms controlling foul water
      124
      disposal will for the first time—after the golden share disappears—be controlled from outside the United Kingdom. Thirdly, these private firms will not be confined, as private water companies are at the moment, to the supply and disposal of water. They will be permitted to diversify. That is a point which the Secretary of State confirmed at the start of the debate when he kindly gave way to me.
      I have in my hand a press release from Mr. Roy Watts, of the Thames water authority, dated 24 November. He talks about the future and says:
      'We shall also be able to move into new, non-regulated areas of activity at home and abroad, water related or not, for the benefit of future shareholders, and customers."
      [Interruption.] I hear the Secretary of State—I think it was he—saying "Hear hear."
      Those three features are, I believe, even more fundamental than the idea of private water supply, which has been largely the theme of Conservative Members. I believe that it is wholly contrary even to that Victorian virtue of collective activity in pursuit of public health, because no Victorian believed in private disposal and purification of water. That is what the Government are doing—largely, I believe, because of their ignorance of what all this means. They are also hiding from the public their real motives and the likely effects of the legislation.
      Of course, the National Rivers Authority will be an improvement over what we have at the moment, but it could have been achieved without privatisation. I hope that the NRA will carry out the same model activity as the late lamented Thames Conservancy. We on the River Thames remember that body, which was set up in the middle of the Victorian era, and hope that the NRA will, through proper local consultation and balanced use of many types of water space, bring back the sort of administration that we enjoyed on the Thames many years ago, and which I hope will be recreated. But that has not been the theme of Conservative Members. We have had carbon copy speeches, of which the contribution of the hon. Member for Hendon, South was typical. They have said that there was no, or very little, public investment prior to 1979 and it had been inadequate and impossible post-1979, conveniently forgetting the past 10 years.
      Both arguments are specious. The Government do not want to invest in public water supply and disposal. They do not believe in it because they do not believe in public service as a concept. There may be a few Conservative Members who believe in public service as a concept, but I do not believe that the Secretary of State does. Where public service has remained, instead of being given, even on a limited scale, quality, sustenance and high standards, it has been undermined in Bill after Bill, and regulation after regulation.
      As an example of this—I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) is not here—the Government have removed local authority members from water authorities. How much more undemocratic can they get? I believe that that was done because originally they wanted to privatise water anyway and that was a step many years ago in that direction. It carries dogma beyond the limits of logic, common sense and political sagacity. Political sagacity is in short supply among Conservative Members and particularly at No. 10 Downing street.
      I wonder what Alderman Roberts of Grantham would have said if it had been suggested that the purity and public health of Grantham would in future depend on a private

      125
      company whose area covered the whole of the east midlands and East Anglia, which had shares traded in Tokyo, New York and Frankfurt, which could perhaps be controlled from anywhere in the world, and which could be subject to a takeover bid by any multinational. I wonder what today's inhabitants of Grantham would think about that. I do not think that they know the full implications of the Bill, and that is one of the problems.
      When the Secretary of State opened the debate he fairly and quite properly lauded private water suppliers. We in London know that our first private water supplies came from the great New River company. It collected water from springs in Amwell in Hertfordshire and brought it to London and sold it. It was very good water. It came from the chalk of Hertfordshire and was God-given. There was nothing wrong at that time—and, indeed, there is not now, in Tory terms—in the collection, impounding, piping purification, distribution and sale of pure water by private companies. That is carried on at the moment under due regulation, but the Bill does not continue that pattern. It destroys a pattern of statutory water companies which I do not support, but at least they worked in harmony with the municipal services for over a century. That will now go.
      Not only has the London county council disappeared but the Greater London Council has disappeared with it. In my constituency that is of considerable significance in terms of health. Every drop of water which falls on the roofs, roads and pavements or comes from the baths, closets, factories, works or workplaces in north London is piped into my constituency to the Beckton purification works. From there it is pumped over 30 ft from the low-level to the high-level sewers before it is purified and goes into the Thames.
      When I first became interested in politics my party chairman was a member of the London county council and was chairman of its rivers and drainage committee. At that time he was heavily involved in a huge capital programme of £20 million. That does not sound much now, but I assure Conservative Members that in the 1950s it was a great deal of money and it was spent on improving the northern and southern outfall works of the London county council. Nobody heard much about that. We did that in London for the disposal of water just as it was done in Birmingham for the supply of water, and we are to lose control even of our pumps and the equipment that deals with these matters in London.
      The same loss will be suffered in the constituencies of every Conservative Member and that means that we shall be in the hands of managers such as Mr. Roy Watts. They will be cruising the world looking for worthwhile investments, perhaps in water or perhaps in other things. They will he sharks in an international sea. The plcs will be predatory in order to sustain their activities. In the end the Director General of Water Services will have to agree the necessary funds to keep water supplies going in London and every other part of the country. What collateral for any international speculator!
      If the Bill goes through the other place substantially as it is now, we will have a sort of internationalisation or multinationalisation of our public health services. The House and the public may not yet have appreciated that. Ministers are in the Chamber. If I have said anything that is incorrect I shall gladly give way and allow them to correct me. The Bill reaches the low water mark of the limited and unacceptable philosophies of the Government. It pushes private ownership into areas where it is not only
      126
      unwelcome but unworkable and in the end the public will not stand for that. It besmirches the sense of responsible citizenship which lurks within most Conservative voters. That is the reason for their present unease. If the Bill becomes an Act it will pollute the standards of public life throughout the nation in the way that polluted water poisons the body. In due course, but not first without weakening the body politic, the Bill and its works will be rejected because a reluctant and disbelieving public will not stomach it or the Government from whom it sprang.
      8.54 pm
      Sir Charles Morrison: Most of the speeches so far have been aimed at the contents of the Bill. On the whole, I should like to look at it rather more politically. On reflection I have decided to vote in favour of Third Reading, but without enthusiasm, because I do not think that there is much, if anything, to be gained from an upheaval which will do no more, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) said, than turn public monopolies into private monopolies.
      I know that the water plcs will enjoy the freedom to borrow in the market the capital that they need to invest and certainly a great deal of investment is needed. But existing water authorities could enjoy that freedom as the result of an administrative decision freeing them from the constraints of the public service borrowing requirement and the overall effect on the economy would be precisely the same.
      I shall accede to the Chief Whip's request to support the Bill even though that means that I shall be acting contrary to the desires of Conservatives in my constituency. I emphasise the word "Conservatives". I could say all Conservatives or more certainly all Conservatives who have spoken to me about the Bill. I suspect that lurking somewhere in my constituency there is one or perhaps about 100 Conservatives who support the Bill. However, I must admit that I have not yet met them. That is of some concern to me but it may be a worry about 100 times greater for the Government because I doubt whether my constituents are unique.
      My worries fall roughly into two sections. First. there are those who are worried about the National Rivers Authority. The objectives of those people and the objectives of the Government are not very different, but those people do not share the Government's optimism about the Bill's ability to achieve the Government's objectives. Obviously the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said, there is much concern among anglers and others. Their concerns have not been adequately expressed because time for debate has been limited or non-existent. Therefore, I hope that the Government will listen with sympathy and with concessions in mind to the debate in another place in the knowledge that those who are worried about the NRA, simply want to be more certain that it will live up to expectation.
      The second section of people who are much more opposed to the Bill are the massive numbers who are. concerned that they will have to face a major rise in prices. It is difficult to believe that they are totally wrong. The rise in prices may be the fault of the Labour Government, who cut investment in water, but the electorate now care little or nothing about that Labour Government. For some of

      127
      us 10 years ago may seem like yesterday, but for the man in the street 10 years ago has disappeared into the mists of time, like the South Sea Bubble, the loss of the American colonies and other disasters. Therefore, I urge the Government to remember that, while the Whips may hold sway in the House, they have no influence in the country.
      8.59 pm
      Mr. Pike: The hon. Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) would be better advised at least to abstain tonight, if he does not follow his conscience and vote against Third Reading. I do not believe that there is any reason why he should feel confident that the other House will take the necessary action to put right a Bill about which he has expressed strong reservations.
      The Secretary of State opened the debate. He gave his reasons for believing that Government action was necessary to deal with the problems in the water industry. If he really believes that the position is as he stated, he should recognise that the present set-up for the industry results from the Water Act 1973, which was implemented by a Conservative Government. Changes were made by the Water Act 1983 which removed local authority representation from water authorities.
      If I had been able to make an intervention in the Secretary of State's speech, I would have asked him if, in all honesty, he believed that the Minister who steered the 1973 Act through the House should still hold office in the Government as a member of the Cabinet if the legislation was as disastrous for the industry as the Secretary of State believes. If it has failed, surely the Minister who made that terrible blunder, in the Secretary of State's view, is not fit to hold office.
      The hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) thought that in the main we can be proud of the water industry, although there are problems. The Select Committee on the Environment drew attention to some of the problems when it inquired into rivers and estuaries in 1987. One result of that is the establishment of the National Rivers Authority. It has to be accepted that it was not the structure of the industry put through in the 1973 Act, which set up the river basin concept and the 10 authorities, that led to any failure. If there have been failings, they have resulted from lack of investment in the industry, which is directly the responsibility of Government.
      On numerous occasions Ministers have quoted what happened during the Labour Government's period of office between 1974 and 1979 but they did not mention that the Conservative Government, who have been in office for almost 10 years—next month will see the tenth anniversary of them taking power—have had sufficient time to ensure that water quality is right, that the standard of rivers is improving and that sewage treatment is being carried out more effectively. All the necessary work might not have been completed, but if the Conservative Government had made proper investment over the past 10 years there would not be as many problems.
      Only a few weeks ago in his Budget speech the Chancellor announced a surplus of £14 billion to £15 billion but still the Government have failed to invest the money necessary to deal with the problems. Investment is
      128
      the key. If the Government had a mind to do so, they could retain the industry in the public sector. It does not have to be privatised.
      The Secretary of State failed to recognise that the Labour party has not argued for the status quo or that no changes are necessary. We accept that some things need to be changed. We accept that the separation of the water functions from the regulatory body is a step in the right direction. However, at every stage of this Bill we have expressed our fears that in the end the NRA will not necessarily receive sufficient powers, staffing or resources to carry out its function. The Minister referred to the powers of the director general. We fear that the director general will not have the powers to deal with the regulatory functions provided for that position in the Bill.
      Not only is there strong opposition to the Bill in this House, but water privatisation did not receive the support of the majority of voters at the last general election. Only one party during the last general election campaign was committed to privatising the water industry and that party did not receive the majority of votes from the people voting in that election. I accept that it received more votes than the Labour party, but if we include the votes for the other Opposition parties, there were far more votes against the water industry being privatised than there were in favour of it.
      Opinion polls show that the public are still opposed to the privatisation of the water industry. This Bill will not deal with all the problems. At the end of the day, the legislation will fail because profit will become more important than dealing with the problems in the industry.
      If the private sector had been able to yield a profit from water supply, instead of having 20 per cent. of the water supply in the private sector now, there would have been 100 per cent., because people would have invested in it and developed the system. The simple fact is that sewerage has always been a public service function because there is no profit in sewerage and there never will be.
      If the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) believes that metering is a fair solution, he fails to recognise the penalties that will be imposed on people with large families, families with disabled people in them, and other families who face extra demands for water because of problems within the family.
      I recognise that other hon. Members wish to speak so I will be brief. I believe very strongly that this Bill fails to tackle the problems. If the Government were willing to deal with the problems in the industry, there could be an effective regulatory body and an NRA. With proper investment for the industry and a willingness on the part of the Government, the problems could be dealt with. The public would have confidence that the public sector could solve the problems. The Government should change their minds and drop the Bill now.
      9.7 pm
      Mr. Alastair Goodlad: I support the Third Reading. Over the years I have had the pleasure to be a member of many Standing Committees, but being a member of the Water Bill Committee gave me the most unalloyed pleasure. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning and his team of Ministers comprehensively outplayed the Opposition in every

      129
      department of the game. They won all the arguments, not only because of the skill of their advocacy, but because of the inherent superiority of their case.
      I was very interested to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who came down as unambiguously as I have ever heard any Opposition Front Bench spokesman come down in favour of renationalisation of the water industry. The Labour party has lost much of its empire, but it is re-finding a role, nationalisation. Clause 4 is what the Labour party is all about—the means of production, distribution and exchange.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) says that this is the biggest act of nationalisation ever done by the Conservative Government; if that be the case, perhaps the Opposition will follow us into the Lobby tonight.
      This measure differs from any other denationalisation measure in so far as a quarter of the industry is already in private hands. I would like to talk briefly about the statutory water companies, which have supported the Government's proposals to transfer the water supply and sewerage operations of the water authorities into the private sector and have been involved in discussions with the Department for many months about the details. They have certan legitimate concerns about how their interests and those of their consumers and employees will be affected.
      The areas of concern are, first, debt write-offs. The statutory water companies cannot be relieved of their present debt liability in the way water authorities can. Many of the water companies had very high gearing ratios and the adjustment of water authority debt to provide favourable gearing will inevitably cause statutory water companies to be less favourably regarded by financial institutions.
      Secondly, there are the flotation terms. These might make investment in water service plcs a more attractive proposition than a statutory water company and could reduce the relative creditworthiness of the statutory water companies.
      Thirdly, there are the differing financial regimes. The authorities and the companies have operated under different regimes approved by Parliament. In the case of the authorities, this has tended to produce low levels of borrowing and high charges, whereas with the statutory companies there have been high levels of borrowing and low charges. The rate of return is therefore very different, as is the level of charges under which the undertakings will enter price increase limitation regimes. Unless these differences are recognised, the ability of the statutory water companies to fund their businesses will be prejudiced, as they will be seen as less creditworthy than the privatised water authorities.
      Their capital structure is unique. In addition to conventional debenture and loan stock borrowing, they are based on ordinary share capital, whose dividends historically have been subject to statutory limitation. The yields on these different categories of shares have offered virtually complete security as a result of the ability of the companies to levy rates on consumers reflecting the costs incurred. These shares were attractive to investors seeking fixed income securities offering franked income. The situation will now be totally changed, and it follows that
      130
      the K-setting regime should recognise the need for the statutory water companies to establish a substantial equity base.
      Fourthly, on takeovers, my right hon. Friend has announced that the privatised water authorities will be given a golden share to protect them during their fledgling years after the flotation. Although the statutory water companies are already in the private sector, the fledgling argument could also apply to them. They will have to adjust to a different financial and commercial regime; they will have to adjust to the requirements of the Director General of Water Services and the NRA and will have to carry out substantial capital works in order to comply with the requirements of the EC directive on water quality. The reasons for giving the privatised water authorities protection against takeover could equally be argued to apply to the statutory companies.
      My right hon. Friend has also announced special MMC procedures in respect of mergers of water undertakings which have a gross asset value of more than £30 million to ensure the effective operation of comparative competition. However, I do not believe that the size of the operation is any guarantee of efficiency. Small undertakings can be just as efficient as large ones, and in some cases more so, and I do not think it is logical that the director general should be deprived of efficient comparators simply because they are small. This is certainly an argument for applying the MMC procedures to all undertakings.
      I am aware that my right hon. Friend will have a discretion to refer small mergers, and I hope that he will occasionally be disposed to exercise it. As my hon. and learned Friend said in the debate on Report stage:
      "to preserve all 39 water undertakers in independent ownership … would be to tend to freeze the existing pattern of ownership in the industry, and there is no reason to suppose that … is necessarily the best or most efficient.— [Official Report, 22 March 1989; Vol. 149, c. 1176.]
      It is likely that in certain areas that course may be the most appropriate in circumstances of comparative competition. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind the fact that where there is no mandatory requirement to refer there may be a public interest in so doing.
      These are matters to which there is no easy answer. I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister has listened carefully to the Water Authorities Association and the companies and that his officials have been extremely patient and helpful. I hope that during the remaining course of the Bill answers will be found to those problems and I wish the Bill a successful passage.
      9.14 pm
      Mr. Boateng: We have concentrated on Third Reading on two aspects of privatisation—the privatisation of environmental protection and amenities on the one hand and the privatisation of the collection of water and its distribution on the other. At the outset the Secretary of State reassured us that he did not intend to privatise the raindrops, only the places where those raindrops are collected or where water welled. We are supposed to give thanks for that much comfort.
      I want to concentrate on one other aspect of privatisation—the privatisation of the public health facility that the public supply and distribution of water has traditionally sought to protect.
      When we look at the formation of the water industry as we know it today, we see that our Victorian forefathers

      131
      sought above all else to protect the nation's health. It is that self-same public health which the Opposition submit is at risk as a result of this act of privatisation.
      The Secretary of State told us, in an insight that he had into Labour history—I would say a blighted insight—that the Bill was the single most important measure of environmental protection since the Labour party was a gleam in Keir Hardie's eye. That was the Secretary of State's analysis, which I want to take him up on. I want to look at a period in which the Labour party was a gleam in the young Keir Hardie's eye.
      We heard from the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) of the situation in the French Cameroons. I know nothing of the French Cameroons, but I do know something of the Kingdom of Ashanti, where I was baptised, and I do know something of London, the city in which I was born.
      I want to take the Secretary of State back to the 19th century, as he would have us do, and refer him to a letter in The Times of 11 February 1875 from a Mr. Humphry Sandwith of Wimbledon. What was it that created such a feeling of anxiety in Mr. Sandwith at that time? He begins his letter to the editor by reminding him of the great steps forward that were taken in water sanitation. He says:
      "On the outbreak of the Ashantee War you did good service in the cause of sanitary reform on behalf of our negro fellow-subjects and a few unfortunate Englishmen who were condemned to linger in bad health or to die on that pestilential coast. You pointed out clearly that a bad climate was robbed of half its terrors if the inhabitants could command pure air and pure water".
      I am bound to say that I take issue with Mr. Sandwith on his description of the Gold Coast as being a pestilential coast. I also take issue with him on the benefits to the people of the Gold Coast of the Ashanti war. My great grandfather fought on the losing side in that conflict. However, I am bound to say that as a result of his efforts and those of many of my ancestors, we were able to ensure that Ashanti became only a protectorate, not a colony. I know that many Conservative Members from the district commissioner brigade know full well the distinction between a colony and a protectorate. The battle was not completely without its victory.
      The editor of The Times is taken to task on the impact of the state on that day in 1875 of drinking water and its supply to certain sections of our city. Mr. Sandwith says:
      "I now venture to ask for your powerful aid, not on behalf of Africans, but of the unfortunate dwellers in the West-end of London, the peers, spiritual and temporal, the baronets, knights and esquires who inhabit the fashionable quarters of this singularly filthy and wealthy city."
      His reference to a
      "singularly filthy and wealthy city"
      is redolent of certain aspects of the city in which we live today. He goes on:
      "The immediate cause of my appeal is the following fact. At a large West-end club the drinking water supplied by a certain water company left such abundant deposits of mud in the cisterns that it was necessary frequently to clean them. I saw large cakes of this dried mud, which had a peculiarly offensive appearance; a portion of it was sent to an eminent analyst."
      Under the Bill, which the Government seek to push through on Third Reading, the public will be obliged to rely on water companies themselves for analysis, but in those days at least that work was done by an independent analyst. The writer continues:
      132
      "He found it to consist of various unwholesome debris and of a considerable quantity of human excrement. Now, Sir, I ask, are the people of this city, are the wealthy and refined, as well as the poor and the helpless, content to go on drinking this repulsive mixture? A grand scheme is afloat to tunnel the Channel, millions are found to lend to Czars and Sultans; cannot London find money to bring us pure water from Wales?"
      That was in the 19th century, when that correspondent to The Times felt it necessary to draw to the attention of the editor and the general public the consequences of privately owned and distributed water. His response was to suggest—as came to be the case—that the municipalities and the public interest be protected by bringing the supply and distribution of water under public control. That made sense then to our forefathers in Ashanti and in London.
      The Secretary of State for the Environment—and we have done our research—does not appear to be a member of any London club, although no doubt he would count himself among the wealthy, if not the refined. It must be said that his hon. and learned Friend does belong to the Carlton. However, one would have thought that even out of concern for the wealthy and refined, for the members of London clubs—never mind the poor and oppressed for whom the Conservatives have never shown concern—and for public health, even at this late stage the Government would abandon this disastrous measure. In so doing, they would save themselves from the fate that Lord Rosebery pointed out lay in wait for any Government. He said:
      "Water is one of those points which has wrecked a powerful government before now, and may wreck governments again."
      We believe that the Bill will wreck the present Government, and that they will rue the day that they brought it to this House.
      9.22 pm
      Mr. Alistair Burt: When the history of this Bill is written, the contributions of the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boetang) throughout the Committee stage will be remembered as a delightfully irrelevant footnote. He has kept up that tradition right to the end, and I am sure that the whole House thanks him for his further eloquent but totally irrelevant contribution to the passage of our great Bill.
      As we near the conclusion of this stage of the Bill, it is right that we should be as honest as possible—as we always are. My right hon. and hon. Friends recognise that it is a tricky Bill and one of whose merits it is difficult to convince the public. However, the public will ultimately be convinced of its value because it epitomises many of the things that the Government have striven to achieve over the years. The Government have taken upon their shoulders the mantle of the radical, belying the term Conservative that is part of the title of the party. We have been radical in respect of this issue.
      The Government have also tackled, and not for the first time, sceptical public opinion. In this country, public opinion is innately conservative. Much needs to be changed that can only be challenged by the radical. We have also challenged the cosy presumption that public and state is best—and in some cases is all. That belief flies in the face of what people have often said, and flies in the face of that which people have often voted against. Nevertheless, it is something we have had to tackle.
      In dealing with the objections of my own constituents, I have found that the more the Bill is explained to them,

      133
      and the more that matters are made clear, the more support the Bill generates. Many people are unaware that 25 per cent. of the country is already served by private water suppliers. Many people to whom I have spoken have been unaware that there is public regulation contained in the Bill to ensure quality—the National Rivers Authority, the Director General of Water Services. Many have been unaware of the failure of past investment which we have covered innumerable times, both in Committee and on the Floor of the House. It is important that some of the failures of previous Governments have not been well touched on by hon. Opposition Members tonight.
      In dealing with people's concerns, we have been able to point to some encouraging things. We have recalled their concern about other measures carried out by the Government, principally gas and British Telecom. When the measures have been put through, opposition has fallen away and there has been encouragement of wider share ownership and wider participation by employees in their own industries. All these are things that the Government have tackled in many other areas in exactly the same way as they seek to tackle them in the water industry. There are areas where public concern has been very strong at the time that the measure has gone through Parliament but has faded away afterwards as the benefits have become clear.
      When it comes to future benefits, I ask the Minister to comment on a couple of things when he replies to the debate. The first is the benefits that may come from the sale of expertise abroad. When private companies develop expertise in dealing with water in this country that technology will be available for use abroad. Why do we always assume that the French will come here and run our industry? Why do we not assume that people in this country will be able to export their expertise?
      Perhaps the Minister should also mention the consumers' charter. Again, this is something which is often unknown to our constituents until we talk to them about it as a future benefit which they do not at present receive but which they will get from the way in which water will be supplied to them in future.
      If there is one matter, in particular, which is inadequately dealt with at present and which the Minister may be able to clear up for the future, it is disconnections. The Minister is aware of the reservations felt that I and many on both sides of the House feel about the fact that at present a court order is not necessary before the water supply is disconnected. That should become the norm. I ask the Minister very strongly to consider this and see what the Director General of Water Services may make of such a code of practice if he could put it his way for consideration. That would be a very useful thing to do.
      My constituents are particularly reassured when they think about the policies of hon. Members of the Opposition. When they think about some of the measures that we have introduced, they remember that the Opposition have caved in to our views on the sale of council housing, on the rights of the individual in trade unions, on renationalisation of many industries. They are encouraged that once again our views will hold sway and that once again the Opposition will cave in.
      We believe that the measure will work. It must work. With these things in mind, opinion in the country will be convinced and the measure will be seen in future as a great success.
      9.27 pm
      Mr. Elliot Morley: In my brief remarks I will not go over many of the views, well expressed in the course of the debate, about the mistaken assumption that taking a natural monopoly and putting it into the private sector will somehow improve quality standards and also protect consumers. I will just touch on the argument that those people who live alone will benefit from metering. It ignores the fact that, on the water boards' own figures in the trial areas where metering is taking place and where the standing charges have been applied, even a pensioner will pay significantly more under metering than at present. Those people who have more than one person in the house, who have young children or who care for an elderly relative, will pay a great deal more because of the greater amount of water that they will need. It is not very helpful for some hon. Members to suggest that water will be rationed because of its high costs and that that is a good thing in itself.
      Something which has not so far been dealt with but which came up in Committee is the concern of people who have bought houses on estates where the sewers, laid by private contractors, are sub-standard, and will not be adopted by the local water authorities or private plcs, if and when they come in, will not adopt the sewerage systems. Incidentally, according to the argument of sonic Government Members, everything in the private sector is rosy, everything will be more efficient and better delivered. If that were the case, constituents of mine in Winchester avenue, Bottesford would not be suffering from sub-standard sewerage systems. Nor would those of the many hon. Members from all parts of the country who have raised similar problems.
      Under the Bill the same people who laid those sub-standard sewerage systems will presumably be able to tender successfully to lay more such systems. The Bill does not protect quality standards. It represents yet another missed opportunity. It could have improved water quality, and protected conservation access and sites of special scientific interest. The Secretary of State has conceded a very small point on national parks: there will, he says, be consultation on the part of the privatised water companies. Nevertheless, they can still ignore the wishes of local people and the parks authorities, and proceed with developments that do no fit in with the areas in question.
      Some hon. Members have argued strongly for tight regulation of prices. Such regulations will pose the risk that companies will resort to maximising their assets by capitalising those assets—in this instance, land, often of scientific importance and natural beauty. The Bill poses a danger to conservation, public health and water quality. It also represents a missed opportunity of dealing with private sewers and giving water companies powers to step into estates such as Winchester avenue, make good the damage and bill the people responsible, rather than giving them rights to tender for contracts to do the same again to the public system.
      9.30 pm
      Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Minister of State found himself in rather a bad temper earlier—not for the first time, I would say. I do not intend to follow his example. I was, indeed, intending to start on a note of congratulation: the Secretary of State was absent for some of our debate this evening, and this time it was for a very

      135
      good reason. He was attending the christening of his grandson—[Interruption.]—of his two grandchildren: I congratulate him doubly. I shall make the obvious comment: I trust that they were not christened with Perrier, which seems to be the Secretary of State's favourite.
      This evening's debate has been interesting—despite being the culmination of many hours of discussion—not least because of the enlightening comment from the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) that water will be better in private hands because those who can afford it will be able to obtain the water that they need during a drought. That shows the market going to extremes.
      A Third Reading debate is supposed to consider a Bill as it stands after Committee and Report stages. Considering the Government's attitude, however, it is not surprising that today's debate has been something of a repeat of the Second Reading debate in December. Throughout our proceedings, the Government have dug in their heels and refused to listen to reason or public opinion, or to take account of the practical considerations that formed the basis of our debates and amendments in Committee.
      There are three basic reasons why we—and public opinion—oppose the Bill as it stands. The first is one of principle. When we talk about the water industry, we are talking about an industry that is vital to the individual health of each and every one of us. More than that, we are talking about the public health of the nation, and indeed the long-term health of future generations. That is one of the reasons why the public know the dangers of water privatisation better than the Government. They recognise that advances in water purity and the safe disposal of sewage have contributed more to improvements in health than many of the drugs and medicines that are given so much credit. Almost all of that has been done at public expense by public authorities—in the main by those bodies that the Government love to vilify, the local authorities.
      The second reason why we opposed and still oppose the Bill is practical. Everyone knows, and we have always said, that investment is necessary to bring the industry up to scratch. We have had arguments about the level of investment under Labour and Conservative Governments, and I am happy to repeat them this evening. The facts are clear: the average level of investment under the last Labour Government was substantially higher than it has been under Conservative rule. Leaving that aside, and looking to the future, what is likely to produce more investment?
      The Government argue that the private sector will provide more investment. Leaving aside the Chancellor of the Exchequer's comment that investment in the private sector will be more expensive—which must somewhat reduce the amount of investment that the industry will receive—will the private sector invest more to clean up our rivers, to tackle pollution, to clean up our beaches and to provide pure drinking water, free of aluminium and nitrates and, more expensive to achieve, free of lead?
      What incentive will the private sector have to make that level of investment? What incentive will there be for the industry in private hands to invest an extra £1 billion to clean up the beaches an additional £3 billion to improve drinking water quality or an extra £9 billion to confirm
      136
      with EEC directives? What extra return will investors receive from additional investment of that magnitude? Will the industry sell more water or dispose of more sewage? Of course it will not.
      The return to the private investor will not be high enough unless the Government's flotation is done in such a way as to cheat the taxpayer and the consumer. Water authorities are supposed to be valuing their present assets and liabilities—not an easy task when, for example, the Yorkshire authority does not know the condition of 70 per cent. of its sewers and does not even know where 30 per cent of them are.
      The sampling techniques which form that basis of the asset management plans which are being drawn up have been described to me by a statistician, consulted professionally about the issue, as nothing more than
      "an attempt to obtain a statistical blessing on guesswork."
      Anyone who buys into the industry will be buying a pig in a poke, which, on the basis of market forces, does not look that attractive. Indeed, the stockbrokers Seymour Pierce Butterfield Ltd. said in their report on the industry and privatisation:
      "It is accepted that in terms of core operations, such as water supply, sewage treatment and disposal, growth is distinctly limited."
      That does not sound an attractive proposition for the private investor. That, however, is the position before Government intervention. I say that because the one thing this so-called free market Government cannot do is let a privatisation of this kind flop. That is why they are busy interfering with and intervening in market forces, stacking the cards in favour of potential investors.
      I am sure that we shall soon hear about proposals for debt write-off. The massive debts of the water industry will not be passed to the private sector. They will be met, as usual, by the taxpayer. We now have the Government's latest document for price-setting. That confirms what we discovered in Committee, which is that the initial round of price-fixing will be done by the Secretary of State and that the new regulator, the Director General of Water Services, will not be involved.
      We heard today that the Secretary of State has appointed the first Director General of Water Services, the man who, according to the Government, will look after the interests of consumers. He is, the House will not be surprised to learn, a Treasury civil servant apparently with considerable experience of the rates of return of nationalised industries, but with no experience of looking after the interests of consumers.
      That fits in with the Government's outlook generally, because when the first round of price-fixing takes place in the autumn, consumer representatives will not be consulted or have any input. Indeed, the document on price-fixing says:
      "The primary duty will be to ensure that companies are able, in particular by securing reasonable returns on their capital, to finance the industry."
      It goes on to say that subject to that duty will be a
      "duty to ensure that the interests of customers are protected."
      In other words, the duty to ensure the interests of customers, of consumers, is given only as a secondary duty, secondary to the job of securing reasonable returns on capital. That means that prices will be higher, investment costs will be passed directly to the consumer and, because the K factor in prices will reflect a basket of

      137
      charges, domestic consumers could end up subsidising industrial polluters. That is a long way from the principle that the polluter must pay.
      The Government are interfering with market forces so that the industry will be more attractive to private investment. They are doing this in three ways. First, they are doing it with regard to debt write-off. We await the Minister's announcement, and if he does not intend to write off the debt, I hope that he will clarify the position by telling the House this evening that that is the case. The second way in which the Government intend to make this industry more attractive is by allowing higher prices once the industry is in the private sector, and by allowing cost pass through to the consumer. The third way in which they are making the industry attractive is by handing over to the private sector assets and powers that will inevitably be used against the public interest.
      Looking again at the report of the stockbrokers and city analysts, one sees what they say of a private water industry:
      "Low increases in earnings per share, limited potential for growth in dividends, and a semi-static market do not, at first sight, suggest an exciting investment. This is not a view, though, which is likely to be shared by a number of potential predators. Any company that could optimise the use of a water authority's client base by using it to expand the market for its existing products, perhaps in a related field, stands to benefit significantly. Companies in the chemical waste disposal and heavy construction sectors might find particular attractions in bidding for privatised water industries."
      There we have a summary of what this Bill is all about. The words of the City analysts are "potential predators". They are the people who have their eyes on this industry; they are the people who will make most out of it once it goes into the private sector.
      We do not want to see, and the public do not want to see, a water industry that is owned by chemical companies and construction companies, yet these are the very companies identified by the City analysts as most likely to be interested in buying into this industry. If water companies are to be owned by chemical companies, and then those water companies are to contract out the analysis work of the NRA, the NRA will become a farce. The likes of Mr. Court of South West Water will be well on their way to achieving their objective of outwitting the regulators, and the chemical companies, or other polluting companies, will be well on their way to ensuring that the polluter does not pay.
      Of course, there is also the land issue. Of the land, the city analysts say:
      "Water authorities with significant amounts of surplus land may well realise sizeable capital gains by selling it."
      Of course, the new water plcs will be given that land when the industry is sold, so that they may realise those gains. To asset-strip and take the gain of the land values wherever possible is certainly the objective of those companies.
      Another development has become clear—and I hope that the Minister will confirm the reports that have appeared in the press. It has become clear that the Government have decided to give important planning powers to the new water companies. These private companies will be able to decide whether a building development will have adequate water supply and sewerage facilities. How very convenient for the construction companies that buy up water companies and get 500,000 acres of land, much of it in areas of outstanding natural beauty. The construction companies
      138
      will decide land values and where development should take place. That is one of the reasons why the French are interested.
      If the price of the industry when flotation takes place is low enough and if enough bribes are given, the water industry will be sold. If that happens, the consequences will be with us for many years to come. Fortunately, the public realise what this is all about. The public, like the Opposition, want a water industry that is accountable not to the shareholder but to the consumer. That is why they want us to vote against the Bill.
      9.45 pm
      The Minister for Water and Planning (Mr. Michael Howard): One of the last points made by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) was typical of the Opposition's approach to the Bill. There is no truth whatever in her suggestion that the water companies will be given powers over development. The position will not change. The water companies will have a duty to provide infrastructure for development and they will have a right to be consulted, just as they have at the moment. That was an absolutely typical example of the way in which the Opposition have sought to mislead, exaggerate, scaremonger and play upon people's fears.
      Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Howard: No, I have already dealt with the hon. Lady's point.
      The Bill has been discussed in Standing Committee and on the Floor of the House for over 187 hours. The last few hours have been as interesting as ever. I shall deal at the outset with another example of scaremongering by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). He suggested that, contrary to earlier assurances, workers in the industry will not be provided with a pension scheme that includes index-linking. That is not so. They will be entitled to terms, through the mirror image scheme, that will be exactly similar to those in the local government superannuation scheme. It will be at the same cost to employees and it will include index-linking. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will return to his sponsor, NUPE, and ask it to put the matter right and tell the truth to its members who are employees in the industry so that they are not misled.
      In his interesting speech my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) based his opposition to our proposals on what he saw as the lack of competition in the industry. With respect to my hon. Friend, I think that he exaggerated the competition that exists in the telecommunications and gas industries and underestimated the extent to which the Director General of Water Services will be able, by comparing the performance of different companies in the water industry, to ensure that the standards of the most efficient spread to the rest of the industry and that the customers of the industry benefit from the greater efficiency. I am confident that in due course he will see the merit of what we are suggesting.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) again expressed his fears about disconnections. He expressed those fears many times in Committee. We are still considering his suggestion that disconnections should take place only after a court order. However, we have decided that the disconnections code should be subject to

      139
      the approval of the director general. That was one of the points in which he was interested. My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) raised a number of interesting points, which we shall look at carefully.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and my hon. Friends the Members for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) and for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop)—whose speech I was sorry to miss—expressed concern about the strength of powers and the independence of the National Rivers Authority. We shall take care to ensure that the National Rivers Authority is an independent body and that is has the powers that are in the Bill for all to see, as well as the resources that it needs to do its job properly.
      I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking that the National Rivers Authority has the duties for which he pressed. We think it right that it should have a discretion when it comes to decide to what extent it is appropriate to take samples, but its duties will be supervised by the Secretary of State, who can issue directions to the authority and whose exercise of that supervisory power is itself subject to supervision in the courts.
      The National Rivers Authority is in many ways the cornerstone of our proposals, and it has presented Opposition Members with something of a quandary. It is so obviously a good idea, and so obviously a body that is badly needed that even Opposition Members have found it difficult to attack. Sometimes they have taken refuge in attacking not the proposals contained in the Bill but the proposals contained in the arrangements which were previously proposed for the industry and which were withdrawn by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
      Perhaps the true attitude towards the National Rivers Authority was let slip—as the true attitude of the Opposition so often is—by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) when he was winding up our debate on 22 March. The hon. Gentleman sneeringly and derisively referred to a description of the National Rivers Authority provided by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Crickhowell, who will be its first chairman. Lord Crickhowell had referred to the need to operate
      "a slim, efficient, cost conscious organisation".
      To the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends that was a description worthy of derision. He would no doubt prefer a bloated, inefficient, extravagant organisation—an organisation of the kind which was so typical of the Opposition's years in government. Indeed, it was during those years that we saw the remarkable triple achievement of massive increases in water charges, massive increases in staff and a halving of capital investment in sewerage.
      Mrs. Ann Taylor: On the specific point of the size and resources of the NRA, surely the Minister should support our earlier amendments which would have given the NRA sufficient resources and powers to do its job properly. If it is to be the slim organisation about which he spoke, that is why it has to contract out so much of its work back to the water plcs.
      Mr. Howard: The hon. Lady has made that charge before; there is no substance to it. In eight of the 10 regions there will be no contracting out to laboratories. There will be no contracting out of sampling in any of the 10 regions
      140
      and we shall respect the safeguards that the National Rivers Authority advisory committee has put forward to safeguard its independence.
      Of course, when pressed about the undoubted achievements and advantages of the Bill, Opposition Members say—this is the kernel and crux of the argument—that it is not necessary in order to achieve these advantages for the industry to be transferred to the private sector. All these advantages can be achieved, they say, while keeping it in the public sector.
      This is a straightforward proposition. It is, moreover, a proposition which can be tested. It can be tested against the record of the Labour party when in Government; it can be tested against the record of this Government. What the Opposition have never done is to make it clear which, if either, of these tests gives them any confidence that the argument which they advance is a sound one. That argument can hardly be said, even by Opposition Members, to survive the test of the industry's performance while their party was in government.
      We know—the figures are incontrovertible—that capital investment in the industy fell by one third during the Opposition's period in Government. Investment in sewage and sewerage services fell by no less than one half. That fall continued during the period when the right hon. and noble Lord Callaghan of Cardiff was Prime Minister in an Administration in which the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) served successively as parliamentary private secretary to the Prime Minister and as a Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department of Industry.
      One might have expected that those cuts would have been marked by great heart searching on the part of the Government who were responsible for them. It might have been expected that the most anxious consideration would be given to the effects of those cuts on our rivers, on our bathing waters and on our water environment generally. I turned for enlightenment to the autobiography of Lord Callaghan, so aptly entitled "Time and Chance". I turned to the index of the book. Do we find there page after page of reference to anguished discussions on the future of the water industry, and on the effects on the industry of those cuts? I fear not.
      I looked under water; there was not a single reference. I looked under sewage and sewerage services; not a single reference. So far from being accompanied by a gnashing of teeth or a wringing of hands, or indeed any realisation of the damage that was being done to our water environment, those cuts were made without any mention, without any regret, without any realisation of the enormous damage that they would do.
      I thought that perhaps the then Prime Minister was too busy on grander matters to have concerned himself with these minutiae, and I was anxious to be fair to the Labour party, so I turned to the memoirs of Lord Barnet, who was Chief Secretary at the time. I looked in the index of his book for a reference to water; there was not a single one. [Interruption.]
      Mr. Speaker: Order.
      Mr. Howard: I looked under sewerage services; there was not a single reference. But, to be fair to the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour party, there were some references which were relevant to this subject. There were three—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Speaker: Order.
      Mr. Boateng: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can it possibly be in order for this tour around the memoirs of previous distinguished members of the Labour party to be made at this stage of the Bill? Is it any more in order——
      Mr. Speaker: Order. What is being said is in order.
      Mr. Howard: This is a test of the policy which the Labour party is putting forward. I found three references of some relevance to this matter in the memoirs of Lord Barnet under the heading "Water workers strike spy". On page 169 of the book, under the evocative chapter heading "Gloom and doom", we read:
      "There was unofficial action of a most damaging kind in the water industry, with many homes without water and elderly people having to use stand pipes."
      That was what was happening in the water industry under the Labour party almost exactly 10 years ago.
      If the Labour party's attitude does not pass that test, let me suggest another test to the Opposition. They can hardly say that they wish their policies to be subjected to a test of what has happened while the present Government have been in office. We say that matters have improved under the present Government, but——
      Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
      Mr. Speaker: Is it a point of order? Very well.
      Mr. Spearing: Is it not a fact, Mr. Speaker, that the Third Reading debate is confined to the contents of the Bill?
      Mr. Speaker: I think that the Minister is talking about the Bill.
      Mr. Howard: What I am talking about is the policy which is at the heart of the Bill and the Labour party's opposition to that policy. Labour Members are advancing a policy which has consistently failed to give the people of this country the water environment to which they are entitled. It failed while the Labour party was in power and it has not done as well as it should have done while the present Government have been in power because the only way in which we can get the resources necessary to give this country the water environment it needs is by putting the industry in the private sector, and giving it access to private sector resources to enable it to operate with the efficiency which the private sector will provide. That is what the Bill provides. That is the only way in which we shall achieve the advantages that are so essential if we are to proceed with the clean-up of the water environment which all the people of our country wish to see.
      The hon. Member for Copeland has repeatedly said that the Labour party will return the industry to the public sector. He does not seem to be in the confidence of his hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) who keeps leaking to the newspapers the fact that the Labour party will not return the industry to the public sector. No doubt that is why the hon. Member for Copeland said that he was willing to set out all the answers to the questions that have been put. However, that will not be in this debate, but in a speech that he will make in a few weeks. He has not told the House the Opposition policy during our debates on the Bill but says that he will wait for a few weeks before doing so. That is a measure of the contempt with which the hon.
      142
      Gentleman treats the House. I invite the House to treat the Opposition tactics on the Bill with similar contempt and to give the Bill the Third Reading it so eminently deserves.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 319, Noes 227.

      Division No. 137]

      [10 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Day, Stephen

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Devlin, Tim

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Dicks, Terry

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Amess, David

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Amos, Alan

      Dover, Den

      Arbuthnot, James

      Dunn, Bob

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Ashby, David

      Eggar, Tim

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Atkins, Robert

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Atkinson, David

      Evennett, David

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Fallon, Michael

      Baldry, Tony

      Favell, Tony

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Batiste, Spencer

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Bendall, Vivian

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Forman, Nigel

      Benyon, W.

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Forth, Eric

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Franks, Cecil

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Freeman, Roger

      Boswell, Tim

      French, Douglas

      Bottomley, Peter

      Fry, Peter

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Gale, Roger

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Gardiner, George

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Gill, Christopher

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Brazier, Julian

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Bright, Graham

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

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

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Gorst, John

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Gow, Ian

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Burns, Simon

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Burt, Alistair

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Butcher, John

      Gregory, Conal

      Butterfill, John

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Grist, Ian

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Ground, Patrick

      Carrington, Matthew

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hague, William

      Cash, William

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Chope, Christopher

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Churchill, Mr

      Hannam, John

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

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

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Harris, David

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Colvin, Michael

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Conway, Derek

      Hayes, Jerry

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hayward, Robert

      Cormack, Patrick

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Couchman, James

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Cran, James

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Critchley, Julian

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Hill, James

      Curry, David

      Hind, Kenneth

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

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Holt, Richard

      143

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Howard, Michael

      Norris, Steve

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

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Page, Richard

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      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)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Irvine, Michael

      Pawsey, James

      Irving, Charles

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Jack, Michael

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Jackson, Robert

      Portillo, Michael

      Janman, Tim

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Price, Sir David

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Raffan, Keith

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Rathbone, Tim

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Redwood, John

      Key, Robert

      Renton, Tim

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Riddick, Graham

      Knapman, Roger

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Knowles, Michael

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Knox, David

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Rost, Peter

      Lang, Ian

      Rowe, Andrew

      Latham, Michael

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Ryder, Richard

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Scott, Nicholas

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lilley, Peter

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Shelton, Sir William

      Lord, Michael

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Sims, Roger

      McCrindle, Robert

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Speller, Tony

      Maclean, David

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Squire, Robin

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Madel, David

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Steen, Anthony

      Malins, Humfrey

      Stern, Michael

      Mans, Keith

      Stevens, Lewis

      Maples, John

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Marlow, Tony

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Sumberg, David

      Mates, Michael

      Summerson, Hugo

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mellor, David

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Mills, Iain

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Moate, Roger

      Thorne, Neil

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Tracey, Richard

      Neale, Gerrard

      Tredinnick, David

      Nelson, Anthony

      Trippier, David

      Neubert, Michael

      Trotter, Neville

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Viggers, Peter

      144

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Wilkinson, John

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Wilshire, David

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Wolfson, Mark

      Waller, Gary

      Wood, Timothy

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Woodcock, Mike

      Ward, John

      Yeo, Tim

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Watts, John

      Wells, Bowen

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wheeler, John

      Mr. Tony Durant and

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Mr. David Lightbown.

      Wiggin, Jerry

      NOES

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Allason, Rupert

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Allen, Graham

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Alton, David

      Eadie, Alexander

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Eastham, Ken

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Ashton, Joe

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Fearn, Ronald

      Barron, Kevin

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Battle, John

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

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Fisher, Mark

      Beckett, Margaret

      Flannery, Martin

      Beith, A. J.

      Flynn, Paul

      Bell, Stuart

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Foster, Derek

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

      Foulkes, George

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Fraser, John

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Fyfe, Maria

      Blair, Tony

      Galbraith, Sam

      Blunkett, David

      Galloway, George

      Boateng, Paul

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Boyes, Roland

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Bradley, Keith

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Gould, Bryan

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Graham, Thomas

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Buchan, Norman

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Buckley, George J.

      Grocott, Bruce

      Caborn, Richard

      Hardy, Peter

      Callaghan, Jim

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Henderson, Doug

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cartwright, John

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Holland, Stuart

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Home Robertson, John

      Clay, Bob

      Hood, Jimmy

      Clelland, David

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Cohen, Harry

      Howells, Geraint

      Coleman, Donald

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Corbett, Robin

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Cousins, Jim

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Cox, Tom

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Crowther, Stan

      Illsley, Eric

      Cryer, Bob

      Ingram, Adam

      Cummings, John

      Janner, Greville

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Darling, Alistair

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Kennedy, Charles

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Kilfedder, James

      Dewar, Donald

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Dixon, Don

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Dobson, Frank

      Lambie, David

      Doran, Frank

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Douglas, Dick

      Leighton, Ron

      145

      Lewis, Terry

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Litherland, Robert

      Richardson, Jo

      Livingstone, Ken

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Livsey, Richard

      Robertson, George

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Rogers, Allan

      Loyden, Eddie

      Rooker, Jeff

      McAllion, John

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Ruddock, Joan

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Salmond, Alex

      McFall, John

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Sheerman, Barry

      McKelvey, William

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McLeish, Henry

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Maclennan, Robert

      Skinner, Dennis

      McWilliam, John

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Madden, Max

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

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Smith, Sir Cyril (Rochdale)

      Marek, Dr John

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

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Snape, Peter

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Soley, Clive

      Martlew, Eric

      Spearing, Nigel

      Maxton, John

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Meacher, Michael

      Stott, Roger

      Michael, Alun

      Strang, Gavin

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Straw, Jack

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Morley, Elliott

      Turner, Dennis

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Vaz, Keith

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Wall, Pat

      Mudd, David

      Wallace, James

      Mullin, Chris

      Walley, Joan

      Murphy, Paul

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Nellist, Dave

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      O'Brien, William

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Parry, Robert

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Patchett, Terry

      Winnick, David

      Pendry, Tom

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Pike, Peter L.

      Worthington, Tony

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Prescott, John

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Radice, Giles

      Mr. Frank Haynes and

      Randall, Stuart

      Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

      Redmond, Martin

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

      REPEALS

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

        Electricity Bill [Money] (No. 2)
        Queen's recommendation having been signified—
        Motion made and Question proposed,
        That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Electricity Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
        (1) the payment out of the National Loans Fund of any sums required by the Secretary of State for making loans to successor companies in England and Wales which are for the time being wholly owned by the Crown, so long as the aggregate of any amounts outstanding by way of principal in respect of such loans and sums issued out of the Consolidated Fund for fulfilling guarantees given by the Treasury in respect of sums borrowed by such companies from persons other than the Secretary of State shall not exceed £2,000 million;
        (2) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums required by the Treasury for fulfilling guarantees given by them in respect of sums borrowed from persons other than the Secretary of State by successor companies in England and Wales which are for the time being wholly owned by the Crown.
        In this resolution "successor company" has the same meaning as in Part II of that Act.—[Mr. Norman Lamont.]
        10.18 pm
        Mr. Bob Cryer: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity of raising a number of questions about this money resolution, because I think the procedures of the House are remiss in one or two circumstances. One is in examining statutory instruments and the other is in examining the enormous sums of money which this House authorises. I have a number of questions, which I hope the Minister is briefed to take account of. The first is that paragraph (1) of the money resolution suggests that the payment out of the national loans fund can be made to successive companies in England and Wales, for the time being wholly owned by the Crown, up to a total of £2 billion. That is an enormous sum of money and I would be pleased to learn the terms of that loan from the Minister.
        I imagine that the purpose of this money resolution is to take account of questions that have arisen in Committee, because the first money resolution does not cover expenditure which the Government now feel is required. The expenditure that we are considering is of some £2,000 million by way of loan. Will that loan be open-ended? I imagine that it will be subject to the Treasury's consent. What terms and conditions will the Treasury lay down?
        Can the Minister clarify the position? Is this a way of handing over up to £2,000 million to the corporations which are, for the time being, wholly owned by the Crown, before they are taken over by successor companies—in effect, handing over this enormous sum of taxpayers' money direct to the Government's cronies who will purchase the electricity generating companies?
        I am wholly opposed to the privatisation of the electricity industry.
        Mr. Denis Skinner: What sum are we talking about?
        Mr. Cryer: We are not talking about a supplement of 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. to recipients of supplementary benefit; or the purchase of the House of Fraser. That could be bought three times with this amount. We are talking about £2,000 million.
        Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is marginally wrong. The House of Fraser was not bought with real money. According to the report issued by the Department of

        147
        Trade and Industry, which has not been released to the public, it was purchased through fraud and deceit with what it called funny money.
        Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Government have been giving licence to such tactics in the City. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry suggests that the report has been withheld from publication to avoid any difficulties in prosecution, but I think that it is because the Government want to cover the whole thing up. In this enterprise culture, large chunks of public assets are being taken from the public. The public are being robbed by this procedure. Assets are being taken from the citizenry and handed over to a clique of the Government's cronies. In those circumstances, it behoves Parliament to know exactly what conditions will be laid down for this loan of £2,000 million.
        We have heard before from Department of Trade and Industry reports about loans from company directors to associated companies in which no time limits have been laid down for the repayment of loans. They have been open-ended. I want an assurance from the Government that the loans will be properly laid out, with arrangements for repayment. I want an assurance that we will not have another Blue Arrow situation, with virtually open-ended loans. I want an assurance that the taxpayer will not be left empty-handed as a result of the authorisation of this £2,000 million loan tonight.
        I hope that the Minister can give me such an assurance. I am sure that he will agree that, in this enterprise culture, private firms must stand on their own feet and not be feather-bedded by loans of £2,000 million from the taxpayer. I take it that all the Government's cronies who are buying these companies are sturdy entrepreneurs who, if they were offered £2,000 million in loans from the taxpayer, would reject it as out of line with their philosophy.
        Mr. Skinner: Some privatisation deals did not work out in the way that the Government anticipated. In the beginning—with British Gas, and so on—it was easy, but my hon. Friend will recall that in the case of British Petroleum, the Government underwrote the shares, with the result that the Kuwait Investment Office started buying most of BP. The Government became scared and said, "Just a minute. All of BP is being bought by people who are friends of the A1-Fayeds, who bought the House of Fraser." Consequently, the Government stepped in and asked, "Can we have those shares back? We shall give you more money to take them off your hands." It could be that the £2,000 million is only a tiny proportion of what might eventually materialise.
        Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend suggests that both the Government and private entrepreneurs can be greedy, unprincipled and unscrupulous. That takes my breath away. There is a suggestion that the Government are using £2,000 million of taxpayers' money when they claim that they are the guardian of the taxpayers' money. I want a complete and adequate explanation of why it is that that £2,000 million is needed.
        I see the Chief Secretary to the Treasury sitting smugly on the Government Front Bench, apparently viewing with equanimity the disappearance of £2,000 million in loans in pursuit of privatisation. Yesterday, I visited one of the
        148
        schools in my constituency where a temporary classroom in the schoolyard has been temporary so long that its plywood panels are warping off. That school has been waiting for a new classroom for two years, yet a £2,000 million loan cannot be found to improve schools across the length and breadth of the country. Nevertheless, £2,000 million can be found to facilitate the handing over of publicly owned assets to the Government's cronies. The Government's priorities need some explaining.
        Mr. Skinner: The privatisation of electricity takes account of nuclear power. In order to sell off the nuclear ingredient, the Government have had to wrap it up in coal. It is ironic that the Government are running down the coal industry but cannot sell off nuclear shares on their own, but must cover them up with coal. Consequently, the Government may not be able to sell those shares as well as they thought. Many people will fight shy of buying nuclear shares, even if they are wrapped in coal. The Government need that £2,000 million because they are not sure how well they can sell those shares.
        In charge is a Minister who could not even sell computers to the Conservative Party. They all broke down. The entire Tycom computer network serving the Tory constituency parties could not be made to operate, and the whole firm went bankrupt. One can understand why this latest measure is costing the country £2,000 million.
        Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his illuminating comments. He makes a relevant point. One questions whether that £2,000 million is a form of subsidy from a Government who oppose the principle of subsidies. As my hon. Friend says, the cost of nuclear power is enormous. The nation has been cheated. We were told by the overpaid decision makers in the electricity generating industry that nuclear power would be cheaper. It has turned out that that is not the case.
        We cannot calculate the precise cost of decommissioning a nuclear power station, so we are faced with expenditure of several thousand million pounds just for decommissioning. The Secretary of State for Energy is here. If he has any hard facts that he can contribute to the discussion on the cost of decommissioning, I would be happy to hear his comments. But, of course, he has none: they are entirely unknown.
        It may well be that the Minister wants this authorisation in order to hand over £2 billion to help the privatised industry to embark on the decommissioning process. I have been asking a few questions about decommissioning and the cost of running nuclear power stations, the cost of repairs and percentage availability; and it is a pretty appalling story. Yet the Government are proposing privatisation.
        In view of Three Mile Island and the fact that the American nuclear power industry has not commissioned a new nuclear power generating plant since before Three Mile Island, because of the enormous cost of investment in nuclear power, it may well be that the sort of money that is being authorised here is to cushion the privatisation process and lure the shareholders into taking up the option the Government are providing. If they do not, the Government and, in particular, the Secretary of State for Energy, will be shown to be as dismal failures as we believe them to be and their policies the disaster that we know them to be.
        Mr. John Maxton: My hon. Friend will be aware that, while this money resolution talks about £2,000 million, the Bill itself, particularly paragraph 88 of schedule 12, shows that the Secretary of State has the ability to write off any debt that is incurred up to the point of privatisation. This may not, therefore, be a £2,000 million loan at all; it may be a £2,000 million gift.
        Mr. Cryer: That is a very interesting observation by my hon. Friend. I was coming to paragraph 88 of schedule 12 in a moment, but he has anticipated my remarks. There is, however, a second section of the resolution which refers to guarantees by the Treasury in respect of loans, and paragraph 88 of schedule 12 also impinges on this.
        I should be very interested to learn from the Minister what sort of guarantees the Treasury will give. Will they be open-ended guarantees in which they hand over a guarantee against borrowing to the privatised companies through the successor companies? Will the successor companies carry with them from the companies which are, for the time being, under this resolution, wholly owned by the Crown, the Treasury guarantees in addition to the loans? Once the companies that are wholly owned by the Crown have been wound up and have disappeared, and once the successor companies have taken over, what is the position with regard to, first of all, loans under paragraph (1) of the resolution and, second, the guarantees under paragraph (2)?
        We should be very wary of guarantees given by the Government on behalf of the taxpayers, because they amount to a guarantee that payment will be made by the taxpayers if there is a default on a repayment. That is surely something that we should look at. After all, when constituency Members like myself ask the Government for more money to provide better payments for people who are at the very poorest end of the scale, the Government say that they cannot afford it because it would cost another £10 million, £15 million or £20 million a year. So they cannot give family credit on a better basis or transitional payments for pensioners, which would be the guarantee after the cuts on 11 April last year—the new, savage cuts because the Government were short of money. They could not provide transitional payments very effectively.
        One of my constituents, indeed, is still waiting for payment, having applied a year ago. It seems that, while the ordinary citizen has considerable difficulty in getting a few hundred quid out of the Government, a successor company may have its pockets lined with £2 billion-worth of loans and some guarantees as well.
        It is not the first time that this has happened. British Leyland was sold off to British Aerospace—a company with assets worth some £750 million—for £150 million, and BAe was given £500 million to put in its pocket.
        Mr. Skinner: They did it with Harland and Wolff, too.
        Mr. Cryer: They have done exactly the same with Harland and Wolff.
        Mr. Skinner: But not Sunderland.
        Mr. Cryer: Not Sunderland. They are quite happy to see 2,000 workers there shoved on the scrapyard and into the dole queue.
        It is worth pointing out that £2,000 million was put into British Leyland by successive Governments to retain jobs
        150
        and an indigenous motor vehicle industry. It is important to raise such questions in the light of the £2,000 million mentioned in the resolution.
        Mr. David Ashby: Can the hon. Gentleman equate that with the £4 million a day that was poured into British Coal under the Labour Government?
        Mr. Cryer: I have always thought that an economy should aim to provide the community at large with resources, including the provision of work. Between 1974 and 1979, the Labour Government used their best endeavours to provide work. During their 10 years in office, the present Government have never achieved the low level of unemployment that they inherited. It has been higher each year. The truth is that they do not care about shoving people on to the dole.
        Mr. Skinner: When hon. Members start talking about subsidies, they cannot travel much further than the subsidies to the Common Market and the common agricultural policy. My hon. Friend knows a bit about that. He knows that £16 a week for every family in Britain goes in subsidy to prop up the West German farmers and the rest of them. We have now discovered that some £6,000 million-worth of fraud—three times as much as the figure in the resolution——
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not be deflected from the money resolution.
        Mr. Skinner: When we talk about money and subsidies—like the £2,000 million referred to here as "loans"—let us think about what we could do with it to provide security for the railways and airports: the sort of security that the Prime Minister was given when she went up to Scarborough. If there was any left over, we could give it to the pensioners and the National Health Service.
        Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for Ins contribution. There is a legitimate argument for subsidies to retain jobs. The present Government use that argument in Northern Ireland. Because, they say, it is an area of high unemployment and because there is strife and trouble there, Northern Ireland has the highest level of subsidy per job in the United Kingdom. The argument adduced by the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) that subsidy is somehow wrong is simply not based on facts. If I recall correctly, the hon. Gentleman is something of a Euro-fanatic. I am not absolutely sure, because many Tory Members are very similar: they are clones, and it is sometimes hard to distinguish one from another.
        The £2,000 million-worth of loans and guarantees is not specified in the resolution, but payment may be made
        "out of the Consolidated Fund for fulfilling guarantees given by the Treasury in respect of sums borrowed … from persons other than the Secretary of State".
        So they are getting £2 billion-worth of loans from the Secretary of State and guarantees for loans from other institutions.
        The Government, who are giving potential subsidies to their cronies whom they hope to persuade to buy the publicly funded electricity generating industry, have given between 1984 and 1987 a total of £4·7 billion to the Common Market, yet they claim to be against subsidies.
        Local authorities go cap in hand trying to get back a tiny fraction of that sum, most of which, as my hon. Friend

        151
        the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) pointed out, went to the farming community, including to cereal farmers in this country. When I see the serried ranks of the Tory party standing up and criticising farmers for receiving subsidies, then I will know that there has been a change of heart on their part.
        Mr. Ashby: If the hon. Gentleman is not opposed to the provision of money to provide jobs, why is he opposing this Bill?
        Mr. Cryer: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that privatisation will create more jobs? The only jobs that this measure will create will be in the advertising agencies used by the Government, in the finance houses which facilitate the placing of shares and in the paper chase that will occur in the City, although the number of jobs so created will be but a fraction of the number of jobs that have been lost in the City. But no real jobs will be created in genuine services that ordinary people can use. Every privatisation has started with claims of rationalisation but has ended with more people being put on the dole.
        Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I confirm what my hon. Friend says about job losses arising from privatisation. Indeed, 85 jobs have disappeared in the past week through a voluntary redundancy scheme at Aberthaw A and B power station, the main power station in south Wales.
        Mr. Cryer: Society must provide an opportunity for people to train and improve and a chance for our young people to find jobs. The money that is being provided under this measure could be used, for example, to improve import facilities at docks so that cheap coal from South Africa, brought out of that country on the bloody backs of black miners——
        Mr. Ashby: Oh, dear.
        Mr. Cryer: It is all very well for Conservative Members to make such remarks, but, then, some of them will have been on free trips to Namibia and South Africa, paid for by the propaganda merchants in the South African Government.
        We are concerned at the thought that the British Government have been deliberately planning to destroy village communities around the pits in every major region in this country as part of a planned vendetta against the coal industry and the NUM. The Government's cronies, who share their vindictive and nasty values, would not hesitate to import coal from anywhere that people are exploited if that would make the electricity generating industry what they call competitive. The publicly owned electricity generating industry is competitive and well organised. As a matter of fact, that was recognised in the 1920s: the standardised electricity generating system and the national grid were actually introduced by Conservative Governments, who recognised the virtue of public ownership.
        Of course, this Government recognise the virtue of public ownership in the case of certain public services. For instance, they have not yet arranged to sell the Army off to Securicor. If the standard of competitive endeavour is good enough for the electricity industry, why not for the Royal Air Force? Why should not the RAF be sold off to
        152
        British Midland and the Royal Navy to P and O? After all, P and O is one of the great heroes of the Conservative party, and it pours money into the Conservative coffers. Do not the Government think that that company could run the Navy better, or is it just that a public service provides a more effective and efficient defence of this country?
        Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is moving into an area of privatisation based on what could happen next. He has referred to the armed forces. Is he aware that the Government have already made inroads into the police in that respect? They have introduced an element of privatisation in respect of people being transported from remand centres and so on. As a result, a police review that is given to every Member of Parliament—unlike the Department of Trade and Industry report on the selling off of Harrods—shows that the police are seething because they realise that this is a dilution of their jobs. Now the Police Federation is supposed to be taking——
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) will stick to the money resolution.
        Mr. Cryer: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) for illuminating the debate once again with a very apt comment. We are talking about £2,000 million in loans and, in addition, open-ended guarantees for loans from sources other than the Treasury. This is a very important matter.
        Conservative Members claim that there is no particular virtue in public ownership. All that I am saying—in a very brief and reasonable way—by way of explanation, is that the Government are not selling off the Navy, the Army and the Air Force. That must be because they see virtue in public ownership of those forces. Labour Members say that public ownership is an important principle, and that it is a disgrace that public assets are being sold off and put beyond the control of this House.
        Mr. Alex Salmond: If the armed forces were put out for privatisation, or to competitive tendering, would the hon. Member care to speculate what the Government's attitude would be were the Red Army to put in the lowest tender?
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that, again, the hon. Member for Bradford, South will not be tempted to answer a question which is well away from the money resolution.
        Mr. Cryer: What I am concerned about, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, rightly imply, is this £2,000 million by way of loan that British citizens are handing over to some corporations wholly owned by the Crown. We want to know what will be done with this money when the successor companies take over and follow the evil pattern of this Government. The Government have announced that when an organisation is put out to tender, by and large it is sold to any comer. So my hon. Friend's illustration is very neat: if the Army were to be sold off, we could get Russian domination by another route. That is something that I did not think of when the Government spent £11,000 million on Trident nuclear weapons to deal with the very sort of domination that they could let in by the back door—by selling off the Army.

        153
        There is also the question of control. The Minister is making notes and civil servants are ready to provide him with additional information about the issues that we have raised. When the successor companies take over, all that will disappear. It will become a Treasury matter. Ministers will not have to sit here listening to speeches by me and other Opposition Members. Public accountability will be removed. That is wrong.
        Even with a publicly owned electricity industry, the position is unsatisfactory. If we table parliamentary questions, we are told that they have been forwarded to the chairman of the CEGB, and we get a letter from a public relations merchant who says that nuclear power is not quite so expensive as it seems; it is just that we have been spending an enormous amount of money on it. That is not good enough, even in today's terms.
        After privatisation we shall be unable to ask questions about the successor companies that are mentioned in the resolution. When loans are given not to the wholly owned corporation but to the successor companies, parliamentary questions about those companies will not be answered in full by Ministers. The purpose of successor companies is to remove public accountability. The spivs and crooks who rule in the City with such seedy generosity towards the Conservative party are thought by the Government to be fit people to take over this enormous industry that is so crucial to the people of this country. Townsend Thoresen directors may become directors of the successor companies. They could be steering the nuclear ship to Zeebrugge, with disastrous consequences for us all.
        Mr. Frank Haynes: My hon. Friend will be aware that foreigners will be allowed to buy into our electricity industry. They too will enjoy this subsidy. Is my hon. Friend also aware that some of those foreigners could be put up as a front to buy into the industry? A foreign country that supported terrorism could end up in possession of a nuclear power station. How about that?
        Mr. Cryer: I am alarmed about it. There have been lots of links between private enterprise companies and Colonel Gaddafi. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover will recall the vitriolic criticism that money was being collected in Libya for the miners. There was a torrent of abuse, yet the Government appear to be opening the door to Libyans to buy into the industry.
        I make no distinction between British people and foreigners, but I am concerned about capitalists, wherever they come from, getting hold of a public asset. In the words of the people who sold shares in the 1956 bank rate leak scandal, it is anti-British and derogatory to sterling, but it makes sense to me. They are the people who wrap themselves in the Union Jack and sell Britain down the river, if they think that they can make more money out of it.
        The Minister has some questions to answer about the resolution. I do not intend to take up too much time because I want to give the Minister time in which to respond to the debate. I remind the House that as this legislation continues down its slimy path through Parliament, its disreputable origins and aims mean that the opportunities for Members to ask these questions are diminishing all the time.
        Mr. Malcolm Bruce rose——
        10.54 pm
        The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer)rose——
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Mr. Michael Spicer.
        Mr. Spicer: The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has made his traditional money resolution speech for which he is in the process of making himself world famous——
        Mr. Malcolm Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is not customary to allow hon. Members who wish to speak to do so before the Minister speaks, so that he can answer their questions?
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister has risen, and I have called him.
        Mr. Spicer: As I understand it, I have only just over sot minutes in which to answer the questions, to which the House deserves at least some sort of answer——
        Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your ruling. I had understood that it was normal practice to allow hon. Members who rise to speak in a debate to be heard, and to call the Minister last——
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The normal practice is that if a Minister rises, he is called by the Chair. The House must bear in mind the fact that time is now very limited.
        Mr. Spicer: Perhaps I can help the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) by letting him intervene in my speech, although that will take some lime out of it. I feel that, as the hon. Member for Bradford, South spoke for 40 minutes or so, I should give him the answer he is looking for.
        The hon. Member for Bradford, South was right about one thing: the resolution enables the provision of an upper limit on the industry's borrowing of £2,000 million while it remains in the public sector. But I thought that the hon. Gentleman missed something. He talked about the Government giving the money away to their cronies, by which I imagine he meant ultimately the British people. That is his definition of privatisation, not mine.
        The hon. Gentleman asked why the figure is £2,000 million. The best way to answer that is to remind him that the latest published figure for the industry's borrowings is £1·6 billion, so the £2 billion must be seen in that context. I cannot refrain from reminding hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee on the Electricity Bill that some of them had reservations at that stage about whether we had provided for adequate borrowing during the period before the industry is privatised.
        Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The fundamental question to which the House is entitled to know the answer is what has happened since Second Reading to warrant the measure before the House. After Second Reading the House voted for a money resolution of £6 billion, although my party voted against it and will vote against this one. What has happened to justify the authorisation of £2 billion more borrowing in this short space of time?
        Mr. Spicer: One of the things that has happened is that we have decided that the industry in England and Wales shall be able to borrow with Treasury guarantees. That is

        155
        connected with the fact that we shall allow the industry to borrow short in order to re-finance the long-term borrowing that we shall insist it pays back. We shall discuss that under the ways and means motion.
        Another aspect that was openly discussed in Committee, and to which I alerted it, is that as we approach the vesting of these companies, estimates of borrowing become much clearer. The moneys are comparable with existing borrowing levels. To answer the hon. Member for Bradford, South, the borrowing will be subject to Treasury consent. It will cease—the hon. Gentleman did not appear to take this on board—on flotation of the companies in the private sector. The Treasury guarantees, also covered by the resolution, will cease when the successor companies are floated.
        I wanted to intervene to answer those specific points raised by the hon. Gentleman. There is nothing untoward about the money resolution. It provides for moneys absolutely in line with the present borrowing of the industry within the public sector. How the hon. Gentleman can make a 35 to 40-minute speech relating this to his prejudices about privatisation I am not quite sure, but I certainly wish to commend the resolution.
        Question put:
        The House divided: Ayes 185, Noes 57.

        Division No. 138]

        [11.00 pm

        AYES

        Aitken, Jonathan

        Fallon, Michael

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Favell, Tony

        Allason, Rupert

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        Amess, David

        Fishburn, John Dudley

        Amos, Alan

        Forman, Nigel

        Arbuthnot, James

        Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Forth, Eric

        Ashby, David

        Fox, Sir Marcus

        Atkinson, David

        Freeman, Roger

        Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

        French, Douglas

        Baldry, Tony

        Fry, Peter

        Batiste, Spencer

        Gale, Roger

        Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        Bevan, David Gilroy

        Gill, Christopher

        Blackburn, Dr John G.

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Gorst, John

        Boscawen, Hon Robert

        Gow, Ian

        Boswell, Tim

        Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

        Bottomley, Peter

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Brandon-Bravo, Martin

        Gregory, Conal

        Brazier, Julian

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

        Bright, Graham

        Grist, Ian

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

        Ground, Patrick

        Buck, Sir Antony

        Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

        Butterfill, John

        Hague, William

        Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

        Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Carrington, Matthew

        Hanley, Jeremy

        Carttiss, Michael

        Hannam, John

        Chapman, Sydney

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

        Chope, Christopher

        Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

        Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

        Harris, David

        Conway, Derek

        Hawkins, Christopher

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

        Hayes, Jerry

        Currie, Mrs Edwina

        Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

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

        Hayward, Robert

        Davis, David (Boothferry)

        Heathcoat-Amory, David

        Day, Stephen

        Hind, Kenneth

        Devlin, Tim

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

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

        Dunn, Bob

        Hunt, David (Wirral W)

        Durant, Tony

        Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

        Evennett, David

        Hunter, Andrew

        Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

        Irvine, Michael

        156

        Jack, Michael

        Riddick, Graham

        Jackson, Robert

        Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

        Janman, Tim

        Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

        Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

        Rossi, Sir Hugh

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Rowe, Andrew

        Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

        Rumbold, Mrs Angela

        King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

        Ryder, Richard

        Knight, Greg (Derby North)

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Knowles, Michael

        Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

        Lang, Ian

        Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

        Latham, Michael

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Lawrence, Ivan

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

        Soames, Hon Nicholas

        Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

        Speed, Keith

        Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

        Speller, Tony

        Lightbown, David

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Lilley, Peter

        Squire, Robin

        Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

        Stern, Michael

        Lord, Michael

        Stevens, Lewis

        Lyell, Sir Nicholas

        Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

        Maclean, David

        Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Stradling Thomas, Sir John

        Mans, Keith

        Summerson, Hugo

        Marshall, John (Hendon S)

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Maude, Hon Francis

        Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

        Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

        Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

        Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

        Miller, Sir Hal

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Mills, Iain

        Thurnham, Peter

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Trippier, David

        Mitchell, Sir David

        Trotter, Neville

        Montgomery, Sir Fergus

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Morris, M (N'hampton S)

        Waddington, Rt Hon David

        Moss, Malcolm

        Waller, Gary

        Moynihan, Hon Colin

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Mudd, David

        Watts, John

        Neubert, Michael

        Wells, Bowen

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Wheeler, John

        Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Norris, Steve

        Wiggin, Jerry

        Paice, James

        Wilkinson, John

        Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

        Winterton, Mrs Ann

        Patten, Chris (Bath)

        Wood, Timothy

        Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Yeo, Tim

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Younger, Rt Hon George

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Raffan, Keith

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Redwood, John

        Mr. Stephen Dorrell and

        Rhodes James, Robert

        Mr. Tom Sackville.

        NOES

        Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Beith, A. J.

        Lewis, Terry

        Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

        Livsey, Richard

        Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

        McAllion, John

        Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

        Macdonald, Calum A.

        Cook, Robin (Livingston)

        McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

        Cryer, Bob

        McLeish, Henry

        Cummings, John

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Dewar, Donald

        Meale, Alan

        Dixon, Don

        Nellist, Dave

        Dunnachie, Jimmy

        Parry, Robert

        Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

        Patchett, Terry

        Foulkes, George

        Pike, Peter L.

        Fyfe, Maria

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        Galbraith, Sam

        Prescott, John

        Galloway, George

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Godman, Dr Norman A.

        Quin, Ms Joyce

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Graham, Thomas

        Salmond, Alex

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

        Haynes, Frank

        Smith, Sir Cyril (Rochdale)

        Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

        Steel, Rt Hon David

        Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Johnston, Sir Russell

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

        Turner, Dennis

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

        Vaz, Keith

        Kennedy, Charles

        Wallace, James

        157

        Walley, John

        Tellers for the Noes

        Wilson, Brian

        Mr. Dennis Skinner and

        Wray, Jimmy

        Mr. George J. Buckley.

        Question accordingly agreed to.
        Resolved,
        That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Electricity Bill, it is expedient to authorize—

        (1) the payment out of the National Loans Fund of any sums required by the Secretary of State for making loans to successor companies in England and Wales which are for the time being wholly owned by the Crown, so long as the aggregate of any amounts
        158
        outstanding by way of principal in respect of such loans and sums issued out of the Consolidated Fund for fulfilling guarantees given by the Treasury in respect of sums borrowed by such companies from persons other than the Secretary of State shall not exceed £2,000 million;

        (2) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums required by the Treasury for fulfilling guarantees given by them in respect of sums borrowed from persons other than the Secretary of State by successor companies in England and Wales which are for the time being wholly owned by the Crown.

        In this resolution "successor company" has the same meaning as in part II of that Act.

        Electricity Bill [Ways and Means] (No. 2)
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Electricity Bill, it is expedient to authorise the giving of directions requiring the Electricity Council, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board or the South of Scotland Electricity Board—

        (a) to make payments to the Secretary of State in respect of advances made by him to the Council or Board;

        (b) to make payments to the Treasury in respect of loans to the Council or Board made wholly or mainly in currencies other than sterling.—[Mr. Michael Spicer.]

        11.11 pm
        Mr. John Maxton: I shall be brief, but it seems astonishing that when we have already debated the Second Reading of the Electricity Bill, when we have been through the full Committee stage and when we are approaching the Report stage, we should have a new money resolution and a new Ways and Means resolution. If Labour Members had not been ready to ask questions, the Government were prepared to nod the motions through without any explanation.
        I hope that it will not be the junior Minister from the Department of Energy who will reply to this debate but that it will be a Minister of State, Scottish Office. The Ways and Means resolution covers the Electricity Council, but it also covers the two Scottish boards. The money resolution did not cover the Scottish successor companies. I hope that a Minister will be forthcoming in explaining exactly what is going on—[Interruption.] I know that hon. Members who stand at the Bar do not like to listen to debates; perhaps it would be better if they were to leave the Chamber.
        In his previous speech the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy tried to suggest that the Ways and Means resolution was a follow-on from the money resolution. So far as I understood what he was saying, the money resolution provided for the loan of money to the companies and the Ways and Means resolution was giving the Government the means to take that money back at a later date.
        If we read the money resolution we find, first, that it does not cover Scotland at all but covers only the English and Welsh successor companies, and secondly, that it refers to successor companies and to the money that will be lent to successor companies while they are owned wholly by the Secretary of State. The Ways and Means resolution is entirely about the Electricity Council, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and the South of Scotland electricity board. It does not refer at all to the successor companies. So far as I can see, it has no effect on the successor companies. I hope that a Minister will manage to explain exactly what is meant by that.
        As I read the Ways and Means motion, it states that the Electricity Council, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and the South of Scotland electricity board will be required to repay loans made by the Secretary of State. Perhaps the Minister can explain what the second part of the motion relating to "currencies other than sterling" means. That requirement will presumably cease after 1 January 1990, when the boards and the Electricity Council will disappear and the successor companies take their
        160
        places. What does the Minister mean by that? What moneys are to be repaid, to whom, and how much is involved?
        11.15 pm
        Mr. Malcolm Bruce: This second motion relating to the Electricity Bill coming just before the Report stage underlines the extraordinary way in which the Bill is progressing through the House. The money resolution that we have just debated and this motion introduce significant changes which I find it hard to believe that the Government were not aware of when they brought the Bill before the House only a few weeks ago. The Ways and Means resolution raises a number of questions and requires clarification.
        We have regrettably just approved a borrowing consent for an extra £2 billion and we are now asked to pass a Ways and Means resolution under which
        "the Electricity Council, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board or the South of Scotland Electricity Board"
        can
        "make payments to the Secretary of State in respect of advances made"
        and also make them in relation to loans made
        "in currencies other than sterling."
        We are entitled to know what kind of loans we are talking about and their scale. What is the time scale of the loans and what are they for?
        At the moment significant changes are occurring almost weekly in the industry which the Government are trying to privatise. The industry is moving the goal posts and the Government are running around in all directions, rather like headless chickens, trying to respond to those changes.
        In Committee I made a suggestion, which did not command widespread support, that as the SSEB had 110 per cent. excess capacity, it could do worse than sell one of its power stations to a company in England—and I suggested Torness. I received a letter from the chief executive of the SSEB saying that my suggestion was outrageous and irresponsible and that the SSEB would need the capacity. However, last week the SSEB announced that it was to close Hunterston A prematurely because it could not find a market for the electricity that it generated.
        Will the Minister tell us whether the moneys that are moving backwards and forwards, as described in the motion, relate to the extra early costs of decommissioning the Hunterston A power station which, until recently, the SSEB claimed had still a few years to run? I refer to that station to show how muddled and confused the industry is.
        I notice that over the past few days there has been confusion in the west country. It appears that the Central Electricity Generating Board is applying to build a large new 1,200 MW pressurised water reactor generating station. However, it has cancelled an order for a coal-fired station in the same region.
        One can question the legitimacy of applying to build one kind of power station, closing others down prematurely and arguing that we need extra capacity when the present capacity cannot actually be deployed. It is apparent that, even in the existing state of the market, there is over-capacity. Of course, with an imaginative Government pursuing an imaginative programme, we could use the existing capacity much more efficiently and have no need to build new power stations of any description.

        161
        The question the Minister has to address is whether the Ways and Means resolution is before the House because the dynamics of the industry are changing as we look at it. No doubt to some extent the Secretary of State, having proudly produced his package of inspired duopoly as a retort to the monopoly of previous privatisations, is finding that the composition of the industry that he is proposing to create in advance of privatisation is actually changing before the flotation date and that, consequently, the industry's financial requirements, the repayment zones, the deals it is doing and the currencies it is doing them in are all changing in the light of those new circumstances.
        Over the next few days we shall have a detailed debate on the Report stage of the Electricity Bill and no doubt some of these issues can be discussed more fully then, but I think that the Government have shattered any confidence that they are in control of the Bill, because we have before us a clear indication that they are not in control and they are having to make major changes as the Bill goes through the House, Indeed, in a few weeks' time the Bill will no doubt come back from another place with even more unrecognisable amendments which have never even been debated in this place, because, we will be told, the circumstances have changed.
        I hope that the Minister will be able to give some reasonable and satisfactory answers, and I hope that he will accept that we are now faced with an indication of a Government and a Department out of control of their legislation.
        11.21 pm
        Mr. Bob Cryer: I would like to make a few brief remarks on the question of the giving of directions. The Ways and Means resolution authorises directions to be issued by a Minister to make payments to the Secretary of State and to make payments to the Treasury. Can the Minister tell us, for example, why it was not thought necessary to include statutory instruments in the legislation to give regulatory powers to the Minister? I say this because, if we take this at face value, the Minister can give any directions he chooses in relation to the money. The great virtue of the statutory instrument, whether using the negative procedure or, preferably, the affirmative procedure, is that it actually comes before this House.
        As I understand it, these directions will simply be issued by the Minister. They will not be public documents. We shall not know what is going on. They will not be subject to any scrutiny or vote. The procedure of statutory instruments is lamentable enough in its accountability, but at least it exists. There is the opportunity for a prayer to be laid and for a debate to take place, albeit for an hour and a half, or, on the affirmative procedure, for a resolution approving the instrument to be tabled.
        I do not think it is a very good procedure. If the Minister says, "It has been done before," frankly, I think that, with this Government, we should have a very close look at procedures, because there is the question, raised by a former Tory Lord Chancellor, of an elective dictatorship.
        I am opposed to any Government receiving unqualified powers which place them outside the scrutiny of this place. The Minister has a duty to explain why it is necessary simply to have unqualified directions. He might argue, "Of
        162
        course, this is to require money to be repaid, and surely the House should ensure that, to obtain money for the Treasury, whether in sterling or any obscure currencies such as European currency units"——
        Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is not Euro-currency that is the problem, but money that comes from the Sultan of Brunei. If he wants to become involved he will want to use other foreign money and at the same time he will want to hide it. He will not want that fact disclosed by the people to whom he loans the money, who will act as purchasers, as in the case of Harrods. He will not want anybody to know that he is behind the deal.
        Mr. Cryer: That is another aspect of the need for transparency, particularly in financial arrangements. If the resolution is passed, the Secretary of State will presumably have the power to give directions. Will they be by way of letter or published document? Will they have to be published in any paper anywhere at any time? Can they be questioned or refuted? For example, could the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board say that a direction was faulty because the amount of money contained in it was wrong? Does the Secretary of State have the right to demand a sum of money even though there is a dispute about the amount involved?
        As the Minister knows, from time to time Departments get statutory instruments wrong. Sometimes they contain ambiguities or faults. Sometimes a Minister goes beyond his or her powers and a statutory instrument will come before the Scrutiny Committee to be corrected. But, as I understand it, there is no scrutiny of the directions that we are debating. I know that it will come as a shock to many hon. Members, but civil servants can make errors and Ministers can compound those by signing a bit of paper as it is pushed in front of them along with many other hits of paper, and then there is no possibility of challenge.
        The Minister may say that any dispute could go to court, but that is a counsel of despair. Our legislation should be as clear as possible before it leaves this place. We should try by our best endeavours to exclude the possibility of resorting to the courts in order to rectify a mistake.
        Through a statutory instrument a Minister has power to require repayment, setting out the terms and condition; of that repayment. It is open to scrutiny by the House and by the public bodies referred to in the resolution. That would be a better and more satisfactory procedure.
        If the Minister says that we have always dealt with such matters in this way I can only reiterate what I said about an elective dictatorship. The fact that something has always been done in a particular way in this place is no substantial argument for saying that it should always be done in that way in the future. There are many virtues in many of our procedures, but there are also many defects., and this is one of them. Any opportunity to improve our methods should be taken.
        This is a radical Government. This is the Government who undertake new procedures. [Interruption.] I am being ironic.
        Mr. Skinner: That will not be clear in Hansard.
        Mr. Cryer: That is the sort of claim that the Government make. My guess is that the Minister will use the old, traditional arguments to justify this legislation.

        163
        The Government often claim—falsely—to adopt new methods and to take new initiatives. This measure is not good enough. We should have some accountability. That is one of the Government's Achille's heels. They do not like accountability. That is why they are not publishing the report from the Department of Trade and Industry on the takeover of Harrods. That is why they are keeping it covered up. I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, share my concern that there should be transparency and accountability to the House, and I hope that the Minister will respond in that spirit.
        11.29 pm
        The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): In view of the three interventions I had better explain to the House exactly what the resolution does and particularly how, in answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), England and Wales are to be distinguished from Scotland.
        When the new electricity companies move into the private sector it will no longer be appropriate—as the House will agree—for them to borrow for long-term purposes from the national loans fund or to enjoy interest rate benefits associated with Treasury guarantees and exchange cover on foreign currency borrowing. However, the Electricity Bill provides in clause 72 for lending from the national loans fund between vesting and flotation, and this is intended for short-term purposes.
        Mr. George Foulkes: I am glad that the Minister made that clear.
        Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman says that he is glad I made that point clear. That is what my remarks are all about, and I hope to clarify other points as I go along.
        Once in the private sector, the new companies will secure the debt finance they need from the sources that are open to the private sector generally—banks, institutions, and the money and capital markets, for example. The capital structures with which they will be established will take account of their future borrowing needs.
        We believe that it is sensible that during the period when the new companies have been vested as plcs but are still publicly owned, they should start to deal with their financial requirements as much as possible as though they were already in the private sector—and despite the fact that they will still be able to borrow for short-term purposes from the national loans fund.
        That means for the industry in England and Wales that present long-term debt provided from Government sources or with Government guarantee and exchange cover must be repaid by the transfer date. In the case of England and Wales, the present long-term loans are due to be repaid in instalments. By the end of December 1989 the Electricity Council's outstanding debt to the national loans fund will be £1,185 million, and its outstanding debt to foreign lenders £194 million. The new clause to which the resolution relates ensures that that outstanding debt will be prepaid by the transfer date.
        In answer to the hon. Member for Cathcart, the position in respect of Scotland is substantially different. The Scottish boards' level of outstanding debt, both to the national loans fund and to foreign lenders, reflects the successive investments made in new operating plant, most
        164
        recently at Torness. The restructuring of that debt will occur primarily after vesting day, as allowed for in clause 74 of the Bill—when sums owing to the national loans fund will be replaced by a combination of debentures, issued share capital and reserves. To make that process easier, the bulk of the outstanding debt to foreign lenders will be replaced, prior to vesting, by NLF debt.
        Mr. Maxton: The Minister should make it clear to the House that clause 74 also gives the Government the power to write off a large amount of that debt, if they so wish.
        Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman has twice made that point to the House tonight. The companies' capital structure will of course be a matter for final consideration—and that applies to England and Wales as much as to Scotland. The companies' capital structures, debt to equity ratios and so on, will be addressed when the companies are formed. I have given the hon. Gentleman the answer for which he asked and I hope that the House feels able to accept the motion.
        Question put:—
        The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 40.

        Division No. 139]

        [11.33 pm

        AYES

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Ground, Patrick

        Amess, David

        Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

        Amos, Alan

        Hague, William

        Arbuthnot, James

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

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

        Ashby, David

        Harris, David

        Atkinson, David

        Hayes, Jerry

        Baldry, Tony

        Hind, Kenneth

        Batiste, Spencer

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

        Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

        Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

        Bevan, David Gilroy

        Hunt, David (Wirral W)

        Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

        Boscawen, Hon Robert

        Hunter, Andrew

        Boswell, Tim

        Irvine, Michael

        Bottomley, Peter

        Jack, Michael

        Brandon-Bravo, Martin

        Jackson, Robert

        Brazier, Julian

        Janman, Tim

        Bright, Graham

        Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

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

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Buck, Sir Antony

        King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

        Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

        Knight, Greg (Derby North)

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Lang, Ian

        Carrington, Matthew

        Latham, Michael

        Carttiss, Michael

        Lawrence, Ivan

        Chapman, Sydney

        Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

        Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

        Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

        Lightbown, David

        Currie, Mrs Edwina

        Lilley, Peter

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

        Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

        Day, Stephen

        Lyell, Sir Nicholas

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Maclean, David

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Dunn, Bob

        Mans, Keith

        Durant, Tony

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Evennett, David

        Maude, Hon Francis

        Favell, Tony

        Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

        Fishburn, John Dudley

        Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

        Forman, Nigel

        Miller, Sir Hal

        Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

        Mills, Iain

        Forth, Eric

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Freeman, Roger

        Mitchell, Sir David

        French, Douglas

        Morris, M (N'hampton S)

        Gale, Roger

        Moss, Malcolm

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        Moynihan, Hon Colin

        Gill, Christopher

        Nelson, Anthony

        Goodhart, Sir Philip

        Neubert, Michael

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

        Gregory, Conal

        Norris, Steve

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

        Paice, James

        165

        Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Patten, Chris (Bath)

        Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Raffan, Keith

        Thurnham, Peter

        Redwood, John

        Trippier, David

        Rhodes James, Robert

        Trotter, Neville

        Ryder, Richard

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Sackville, Hon Tom

        Waddington, Rt Hon David

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Waller, Gary

        Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

        Watts, John

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Wells, Bowen

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Wheeler, John

        Speller, Tony

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Winterton, Mrs Ann

        Squire, Robin

        Winterton, Nicholas

        Stern, Michael

        Wood, Timothy

        Stevens, Lewis

        Yeo, Tim

        Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

        Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Stradling Thomas, Sir John

        Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        and Mr. Michael Fallon.

        NOES

        Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

        Haynes, Frank

        Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

        Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

        Buckley, George J.

        Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

        Callaghan, Jim

        Lewis, Terry

        Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

        Livsey, Richard

        Cook, Robin (Livingston)

        McAllion, John

        Dixon, Don

        Macdonald, Calum A.

        Dunnachie, Jimmy

        McFall, John

        Eastham, Ken

        McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

        Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

        McLeish, Henry

        Foulkes, George

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Fyfe, Maria

        Meale, Alan

        Galbraith, Sam

        Nellist, Dave

        Galloway, George

        Patchett, Terry

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Pike, Peter L.

        Graham, Thomas

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Quin, Ms Joyce

        166

        Salmond, Alex

        Wray, Jimmy

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Vaz, Keith

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Wallace, James

        Mr. Bob Cryer and

        Wareing, Robert N.

        Mr. Dennis Skinner.

        Question accordingly agreed to.
        Resolved,
        That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Electricity Bill, it is expedient to authorise the giving of directions requiring the Electricity Council, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board or the South of Scotland Electricity Board—

        (a) to make payments 1.o the Secretary of State in respect of advances made by him to the Council or Board;

        (b) to make payments to the Treasury in respect of loans to the Council or Board made wholly or mainly in currencies other than sterling.

        Question put and agreed to.
        Resolved,
        That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Electricity Bill, it is expedient to authorise the giving of directions requiring the Electricity Council, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board or the South of Scotland Electricity Board—

        (a) to make payments to the Secretary of State in respect of advances made by him to the Council or Board;

        (b) to make payments to the Treasury in respect of loans to the Council or Board made wholly or mainly in currencies other than sterling.

    LAW OF PROPERTY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [LORDS]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Bill to be read a Second time tomorrow.

    Friendly Societies
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
    11.46 pm
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: I am pleased to have this opportunity of raising the important subject of the role of friendly societies in encouraging savings, for which they have a long and respected tradition in this country, dating back over 400 years to the incorporation of the Carters in Leith in 1555. In 1973 they were defined as
    "a society of good fellowship for the purpose of raising from time to time, by voluntary contributions, a stock or fund for mutual relief and maintenance of all and every member thereof, in old age, sickness and infirmity, and for the relief of widows and children of deceased members."
    In encouraging thrift and responsibility and in promoting an active concern for others, particularly among the lower income groups in society, that description of 1793 adequately fits the active citizens of today whom the Government rightly wish to encourage.
    Although the friendly societies have a valuable and increasing role to play in a social and financial context today, they face three major difficulties. First, the market for financial services is becoming more concentrated and larger scale. The localised and heterogeneous nature of the societies—whether they be dividing, deposit or Holloway societies—puts them at a disadvantage.
    Secondly, the anachronistic legal status of friendly societies and the legal structure within which they operate, which basically dates back to Victorian legislation and, particularly before that, to 1793, has restricted the scope of their activities and their ability to respond to financial trends in the money markets.
    Thirdly, the taxation and regulatory regime in which they work, and which they recognise to be necessary in most respects, is not sensitive to their character and the services that they provide. That is particularly the case in their developing a role which is complementary to the welfare state and not swamped by it.
    The history of friendly societies gives an insight into the problems that they experience and into their potential. Before 1911, they were basically self-help organisations which mitigated the excesses of the workhouse and the Poor Law of 1834. By 1911, they had 6·6 million members. The great expansion took place after 1911 when, under the National Insurance Act, friendly societies were given approved society status, which meant that they retained their mutual insurance and contributory schemes and used those as a springboard for their own activities, as they took compulsory payments from taxpayers and made distributions to the sick. By 1945, they had 8·7 million members.
    After 1945, despite the fact that Lord Beveridge wanted his reforms to leave room for voluntary action and a system that did not stifle opportunity, incentive or responsibility, as the system evolved, benefits were 30 per cent. above the levels recommended by Beveridge.
    Their size and scope expanded rapidly, to the extent that, between 1950 and 1987, they increased by more than five and a half times social security benefits—from 4·7 per cent. to 11 per cent. of gross domestic product.
    There was no direct role, as there had been prior to 1945, for friendly societies in administering the schemes, and inevitably, because of the size of the schemes, contributory insurance became that in name only, and the
    168
    scheme was financed primarily by the general taxpayer. The effect of these changes was to erode the friendly societies' traditional market, and, more important, to erode the ethos of saving and of mutual help and mutual responsibility, which has sustained the societies for literally hundreds of years. Now, there are only 462 societies with 7 million members, and their numbers are declining.
    It is ironic that over the last few years the greater provision and the good intentions of the welfare state have, in fact, increased the division between those who are financially sophisticated, who have higher incomes and are natural savers, and those who have low incomes, who are dependent upon the state, who, very often, are caught in the poverty trap and therefore have no particular incentive to save. Although there have been recent attempts, via social security legislation, to counteract such trends, I believe that the friendly societies have a principal role in bridging that social and economic gap.
    The trends bolstering societies have been boosted by three further factors. First, there are the demographic changes that will take place over the next few years. I am thinking, in particular, of the increase in the elderly population from 9 million now to 10 million by the year 2000. Indeed, the number of very elderly people is likely to increase by 50 per cent., to 1·5 million, by the year 2000. Those changes will supplement the need for an addition to state retirement incomes via pensions and, indeed, the kind of annuities that have been provided by friendly societies.
    Secondly, I believe that more people will want to arrange their affairs on a more localised, community basis and will react against the economies of scale that we have seen in the last few years. Thirdly, we have a desire to increase savings for economic reasons, given the fact that the savings ratio now is only 1·7 per cent. of disposable income—back to the 1949 levels—against 11 per cent. in 1985. Of course, it would be unrealistic to expect that all friendly societies will necessarily attempt to meet all these needs. Indeed, there has been an element of concentration already. The chief registrar, in his latest report, which came out about a month ago, said that 90 per cent. of total funds going into the friendly society movement is generated by 37 societies. The five largest are collecting societies that lack many characteristics of friendly societies in the strict sense but, nevertheless, support the arguments that the friendly societies liaison committee put forward.
    On the other hand, one third of friendly societies are not actually taking any new business, and I believe that there will be an inevitable division between those that do a lot of taxable business in the mass market—I am thinking, for instance, of collecting societies, which collected some £190 million in contributions in 1987—and those smaller, more socially orientated, more traditional friendly societies, which concentrate on more philanthropic and local activities.
    Nevertheless, in order to facilitate the adoption of these new roles, and given the speed and competitive pressure of financial markets at present, there are two areas of reform that need to be addressed urgently. The first is the need to widen the scope of the potential activities of friendly societies. The present scope, under schedule 1 to the Friendly Societies Act 1974, is outdated and, indeed, in many respects nonsensical. For instance, friendly societies can provide life policies for married couples, but not for couples who are living together; they can insure tools of the trade against fire, for the princely sum of £15, but not

    169
    against any other kind of loss; and they are prevented from writing any non-life assurance business, whether on an agency basis or direct.
    Subject to the necessary regulations, I believe that the friendly societies ought to be allowed to manage, not merely to invest in their own unit trusts through subsidiaries and without sacrificing their mutual status. They ought to be able to set up their own personal equity plans. That would increase share ownership among the lower income sectors of society. They ought to be able to write their own reinsurance, especially on the risks of other societies. They ought to be able to engage in non-life assurance, at least on an agency basis, and they ought to be able to make loans to their members that are slightly greater than the present totally outdated level of £200. Finally, they ought to be treated consistently, by the Inland Revenue, in particular, as between the powers of those societies that are sui generis, rather than be discriminated against on the basis of when they were set up.
    It is a sad fact that, while these powers are not available to friendly societies, some—like the Family Assurance Society—have already opted to go, with the consent of 75 per cent. of their members, for plc status or for mutual life office status, which will mean leaving the friendly societies movement and many of the advantages that that gives.
    By widening the scope of services, they ought to be able to provide, through the friendly society movement, effective competition to other financial institutions and more effective and efficient services for their members. They ought to be able to increase their access to markets which at present are dominated by insurance companies and pension funds, particularly by those which corner the market by means of tied intermediaries. They get one and three quarter times the recommended commission rates and the disclosure rules for commission are not so rigorous for independent financial intermediaries, upon whom friendly societies have to rely.
    Equally, however, it is unrealistic to think that every friendly society will wish to engage in this kind of activity. It is estimated that only the 40 largest will do so. Others will try to fulfil the more local social and philanthropic aims that are traditional in friendly societies. However, in order to do so—and this applies especially to those friendly societies that do not benefit from economies of scale because of their small size—it has been estimated that the financial burden of complying with the Financial Services Act will mean a 30 per cent. increase in annual costs. They have been deprived of a volunteer sales force because of the expertise now required by the Financial Services Act of those who sell financial products. Tax exemption of their products, particularly life assurance, has been crucial and, I believe, will become even more crucial for the small friendly societies, and for their big brothers, too.
    It is a sad fact that, since 1987, for all societies, whether they do taxable business or not, the tax-exempt limit has been set at £9 per month per premium, which is just over £100 a year, and £750 for sums assured. That represents only four weeks' average wages now. Just before the war those same tax-exempt figures represented two years' average wages. Therefore the case for a substantial increase in the tax-exempt limits for friendly societies is very strong.
    To increase tax-exempt limits is consistent with the tax relief available for occupational pension schemes or with
    170
    the tax exemption that is available, up to certain limits, on certain national savings deposits or on the tax-free benefits available from investments in gilts, in certain circumstances. That contrasts strongly with the increase in this year's Finance Bill from £2,400 to £4,800 in the annual payments to personal equity plans, the proceeds of which can be tax-exempt and which, ironically, so many societies want to be able to market themselves.
    It could be argued that organisations with quaint names such as the Nottingham Oddfellows, the Sons of Scotland Temperance or even the Hearts of Oak, and with the even quainter values of self-responsibility, thrift and mutual help, founded on their mainly Victorian origins, should either join the ranks of, or be absorbed by, the legions of financial supermarkets. That would be a mistake. Time will prove that, as organisations for the lower income groups, supplementing the provisions of the social security system and improving the incentives arid opportunities for lower income groups within the welfare state, to save, and as organisations that cope sensitively with demographic changes in a local way, the friendly societies have an enormous contribution to make.
    Given the constraints on legislative time, the societies do not expect an immediate commitment by the Minister to a new friendly societies Act—they appreciate how complicated and wide-ranging that would be. But they would like a commitment by the Government to the principle of a healthy friendly society movement. They would like to hear of the imminent arrival of a package of measures, including fiscal changes, that would help there fulfil their role of encouraging saving in Britain today.
    12.2 am
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) on his success in securing this Adjournment debate and on his characteristic lucidity in explaining the role of the friendly societies and putting his case tonight. I found his analysis of the historic antecedents of the societies fascinating, as was his examination of the problems that they now face.
    Friendly societies are an important part of our social and economic fabric. They have supporters in all parts of the House—sadly, those among the Opposition have not turned up—and enemies, as far as I know, in none. For that reason they are rarely the subject of debate in the House, and I welcome the opportunity which my hon. Friend has provided us with tonight to discuss and consider them further.
    Friendly societies have a distinguished history of encouraging thrift and mutual self-help. That has changed as the years have gone by, and as my hon. Friend has said, their role has become more difficult in some ways and they have had to adapt to changing circumstances. There are signs that they are doing so. The Government have sought, without going as far as major new primary legislation, to help the societies to adjust to these conditions in a number of ways.
    For example, we have implemented the European Commission life directive, and brought the solvency basis of the largest societies into line with that of the insurance companies, and removed restrictions on investments for authorised societies. I recognise that my hon Friend feels that the Financial Services Act 1986 placed considerable burdens on many societies, but it did enable the

    171
    establishment of an investor protection scheme, of which the societies with assets and members representing over 90 per cent. of those who benefit from the friendly society movement have taken advantage.
    Finally, the Financial Services Act provided relief for small societies under the transitional provisions of schedule 15 to the Act, treating them as exempt if they decide to do no new regulated investment business or are already doing no new business.
    The friendly societies' liaison committee published a memorandum last year which it sent me and with which my hon. Friend will be familiar. I met the committee in September to discuss it. It set out its case for a new friendly societies Act which would grant extended powers to those societies capable of exercising them. Like my hon. Friend, it requested a new tax regime that recognised the special status of friendly societies.
    At my meeting with the liaison committee, I agreed to undertake a comprehensive study of the legislative framework of friendly societies. This is, as my hon. Friend recognised, a long and complex task, and it is still under way. Only when it is complete will the Government be able to decide whether and what new legislation is warranted and, more important, the priority it should be given in relation to other claims on parliamentary time.
    It may assist the House in understanding the time taken to consider the friendly societies' proposals if I set out some details of the problems faced in preparing the report I commissioned.
    First, the nature of friendly societies is such as to make the situation far from straightforward and simple. As my hon. Friend recognised, there is a restriction on the powers of societies in schedule 1 of the 1974 Act, which is essentially a consolidation of the legislation laid down in the 19th century. It is undoubtedly possible to amend and extend that in some ways analogous to those suggested by my hon. Friend. If one were to go further and try to give the societies powers to set up subsidiaries to undertake a number of activities that he and the liaison committee suggested the friendly societies ought to be allowed to undertake, that would mean a fundamental restructuring of the nature of friendly societies. At present they are not corporate bodies, and consequently they cannot possess subsidiaries. It would need a very fundamental change in the legislative nature of friendly societies to enable them to become corporate bodies and possess subsidiaries. That would be quite a daunting and difficult task, to say the least.
    Of course, societies have the possibility at present to convert themselves into mutual insurance societies. My hon. Friend mentioned that one society was considering doing that, and a number of societies have done so in the past.
    I am also looking into the supervision and regulation of friendly societies. The Government have in recent years revised the regulatory regime for banks, building societies and those conducting investment business. Investors expect and should receive reasonable protection for their savings. There is now a voluntary investor protection scheme in place and societies have in general responded well to becoming members. However, the regulatory regime for friendly societies has lagged behind that of other financial institutions.
    172
    The friendly societies movement has long provided encouragement to the small saver and those who are relatively poor. Although the amounts invested in friendly societies tend to be lower than many other forms of saving they nevertheless represent significant amounts for the individual. When I met the friendly societies liaison committee I told it that any extension of societies' powers would go hand in hand with an improved regulatory regime. I am sure it will accept this.
    My hon. Friend also mentioned the tax position of friendly societies, as did the liaison committee. There is a distinction between the traditional social and philanthropic role of societies and their more commercial investment business. It is right that the latter should be taxed in broadly the same way as life offices. The current tax rules are therefore designed to favour the more traditional societies, writing longer-term policies for funeral expenses or retirement, as against more commercial societies selling 10-year endowment policies for pure investment purposes. The change in 1987—rather than 1984, as I think my hon. Friend said—from a limit on sum assured to premiums, setting that limit at 100, helped to secure that objective. The limit is kept under review, but I see no need for art increase at present.
    One measure that friendly societies have suggested in particular is that they should be able to issue tax-exempt policies up to an annual subscription equal to that for unit trusts within personal equity plans, and my hon. Friend endorsed that proposal. Since the improvements to PEPs in this year's Budget, that would entail raising the present £100 limit to £2,400 a year. As my right hon. Friend said, the essential purpose of the tax arrangements for personal equity plans and the changes he made in the Budget is to encourage and widen share ownership and strengthen popular capitalism. Therefore, there is no case for an increase in the £100 annual limit on tax-exempt life assurance policies because that would not be geared to achieving that widening of direct share ownership. In practice, it is likely to do little more than divert business from other forms of savings—including diverting it from PEPs and taxable life insurance.
    A related issue is whether registered friendly societies should themselves be allowed to act as plan managers. I shall certainly bear this suggestion in mind when I look into the broader issues concerning the regulation and supervision of societies. As to whether any of the other tax provisions should be changed—for example, the rule that limits the extent to which friendly societies can issue new tax-exempt policies—the time to consider such issues will be when the regulation and supervision of societies have been settled. At that stage, the representations that my hon. Friend has made will, of course, weigh with me.
    While I am on the subject of tax, I should mention that one type of policy which some friendly societies issue will benefit from the new tax relief for retired people announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget. I am sure that friendly societies that offer such policies will welcome this relief and will market their policies more vigorously to those who can benefit.
    The Budget also introduced changes in the taxation of life companies. Friendly societies which issue policies that are not tax-exempt may be concerned about the effect of the reforms of tax rules for life assurance proposed in the Budget. It is clearly appropriate that societies which carry on business of this nature should receive tax treatment

    173
    comparable with the mutual life assurance companies so that they will continue to compete for business on a broadly equivalent basis.
    A policyholder with a typical society will benefit from the reduced rate for policyholders' income and gains as suggested by the liaison committee in its response to the Inland Revenue's consultative document on life assurance taxation. New policyholders will benefit from the abolition of life assurance policy duty. Such policyholders will be unlikely to be affected by the proposal to ring-fence pension business expenses, or by the measures that change the calculation of pension profits. The revised treatment for expenses of acquiring new life assurance business will lead to some acceleration of the payments against tax, but taken together with the reduction in tax rate, the effect is expected to be broadly neutral.
    174
    I know that there is much sympathy for the friendly society movement and a desire to see it continue to prosper and perform its essential role in encouraging savings and mutual self help. My hon. Friend expressed those matters most eloquently. Many hon. Members would back my hon. Friend's call for speeding up the fostering of friendly societies but we must not try to do that more rapidly than may be possible. Rightly, my hon. Friend did not dwell on legislation, and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not have permitted that in an Adjournment debate. I think that I have demonstrated that I am considering whether there is scope and need for legislation, and during the current review I shall certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's interesting comments.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

THE ARTS

  Computer Consultants
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what was the total amount spent by his Department in 1988 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by his Department in 1988, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment.

  Mr. Luce
  In 1988, £23,391 was spent by my office on computer consultancy contracts. The sum was the balance of expenditure payable to AMTEC consulting for work on the Government art collection database project, commissioned in 1987. No money was spent on management consultancy contracts, and no management or consultancy contracts were awarded in the year.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Central Bank Base Rate
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing for each quarter since the first quarter of 1979 Britain's central bank base rate as a percentage of the G7 average.

  Mr. Lilley
  Interest rates in the United Kingdom from the first quarter of 1979 are shown in the table along with the average interest rate in the Group of Seven major industrialised countries.

  Three month interest rates

  United Kingdom1

  G7 average2

  1979

  Q1

  12·8

  8·6

  Q2

  12·6

  8·9

  Q3

  14·2

  10·0

  Q4

  16·1

  12·2

  1980

  Ql

  17·9

  13·5

  Q2

  17·1

  12·5

  Q3

  16·0

  11·2

  Q4

  15·4

  13·5

  1981

  Ql

  13·0

  13·6

  Q2

  12·4

  14·5

  Q3

  15·0

  15·3

  Q4

  15·7

  13·1

  1982

  Ql

  14·1

  12·9

  Q2

  13·4

  13·0

  Q3

  11·2

  11·4

  Q4

  10·1

  9·7

  2

  United Kingdom1

  G7 average2

  1983

  Ql

  11·2

  9·2

  Q2

  10·2

  9·1

  Q3

  9·8

  9·4

  Q4

  9·4

  9·4

  1984

  Ql

  9·3

  9·5

  Q2

  9·3

  10·0

  Q3

  11·1

  10·3

  Q4

  10·1

  9·2

  1985

  Q1

  13·0

  9·1

  Q2

  12·6

  8·6

  Q3

  11·7

  8·2

  Q4

  11·6

  8·3

  1986

  Ql

  12·4

  8·2

  Q2

  10·2

  7·0

  Q3

  10·0

  6·5

  Q4

  11·2

  6·6

  1987

  Q1

  10·6

  6·6

  Q2

  9·2

  6·6

  Q3

  9·8

  6·8

  Q4

  9·2

  7·1

  1988

  Q1

  9·0

  6·5

  Q2

  8·4

  6·7

  Q3

  11·3

  7·7

  Q4

  12·5

  8·1

  1989

  3Q1

  13·0

  8·9

  1 Three month interbank rate.

  2 Certificate of deposit or interbank rate.

  3 Average of Monday rates for January, February and first three Mondays of March.

  Public Sector Debt
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the outstanding total of sterling debt of the public sector on(a) 6 April 1988 and (b) 1 February 1989.

  Mr. Lilley
  Figures for the outstanding stock of public sector debt are only compiled for the end of each calendar and financial year. The latest available estimate is for the end of 1987–88 when the sterling component of net public sector debt outstanding was £188·2 billion.

  Premium Bonds
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he reduced the percentage calculation of prize money for premium bonds from 7¾ per cent. to 7 per cent.; and if there is any current review of the scheme.

  Mr. Lilley
  The premium bond prize fund rate, like national savings other variable rates, is kept under continuous review and adjusted from time to time in the light of a number of factors.

  Excise Duties
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the consultation procedure
  3
  with the European Economic Community Commission in relation to the revision of excise duties as set out in "Common Market Reports" page 2435; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  The procedure to which my hon. Friend refers formed part of the European Commission's proposal of 7 March 1972 for a directive on the harmonisation of excise duty structures. The proposal has not been adopted and Her Majesty's Government are not, therefore, bound by any such consultation procedure.

  Alcohol and Tobacco (Taxes)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Her Majesty's Government have accepted any European Economic Community rules which ensure that changes in its taxes in alcohol and tobacco do not involve non-convergence from the European Economic Community proposals; and if he will make a statement.

  Child benefit (£ per week per child)

  Single person's tax allowance (£ per annum)

  Married man 's tax allowance (£ per annum)

  April

  Current prices

  1979 prices1

  Current prices

  1979 prices1

  Current prices

  1979 prices1

  1979

  4·00

  4·00

  1,165

  1,165

  1,815

  1,815

  1980

  4·00

  3·29

  1,375

  1,129

  2,145

  1,762

  1981

  4·75

  3·48

  1,375

  1,008

  2,145

  1,572

  1982

  5·25

  3·52

  1,565

  1,049

  2,445

  1,638

  1983

  5·85

  3·77

  1,785

  1,150

  2,795

  1,801

  1984

  6·50

  3·98

  2,005

  1,228

  3,155

  1,933

  1985

  6·85

  3·92

  2,205

  1,263

  3,455

  1,979

  1986

  7·00

  3·89

  2,335

  1,298

  3,655

  2,032

  1987

  7·25

  3·87

  2,425

  1,293

  3,795

  2,024

  1988

  7·25

  3·72

  2,605

  1,337

  4,095

  2,102

  1989

  7·25

  23·45

  2,785

  21,326

  4,375

  22,083

  1 Figures converted to 1979 prices using the movements in the RPI between April of each year.

  2 This will depend on the level of the RPI in April 1989. The figure given is derived by applying the annual increase in the year to February 1989 (the latest month available) to the level of the RPI in April 1988.

  Computer Consultants
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what was the total amount spent by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in 1988 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in 1988, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment.

  Mr. Lilley
  The total amount spent by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in 1988 was £3,527,225.

  The consultancy firms awarded contracts in management and computer consultancy, excluding hardware and software purchases are as follows:

  Firm

  Assignments

  Advanced Computer Services Limited

  Intelligence networks

  Apricot

  Network upgrading

  Arthur Andersen

  VAT work planning systems

  Arthur Young

  Strategic database

  BIS Applied Systems

  Cabling requirements

  British Telecom

  Customs handling of import and export freight (CHIEF)

  Bull (Honeywell)

  Extension of computerised intelligence system

  Computer Centre

  Network upgrading study

  4
  Mr. Lilley
  Since we do not accept the Commission's proposals for harmonisation of taxes/excise duties on alcohol and tobacco we have not accepted, nor are we bound by, any current EC Commission proposals involving the convergence of rates of tax on these items. All such proposals on matters of taxation would require unanimity before they could be binding on member states.

  Benefits and Allowances
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table, on the same basis as his reply to the then hon. Member for Kensington,Official Report, 3 December 1985, columns 173–4, showing the rates of child benefit, single person's tax allowance and married man's allowance at current and at 1979 prices, in April each year from 1979 to 1989.

  Mr. Lawson
  The information is in the table.

  Firm

  Assignments

  Comshare

  Operational planning system

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Board's information system

  Deloitte Haskins & Sells

  Personnel information development

  E O S Y S Ernst & Whinney

  Local office technology system VAT visit assistant expert system Mini strategy study Personnel information system

  Essex & City Computers PLC

  Data capture system

  FCMC PLC Ferranti Computer Systems Ltd.

  Personnel information development Customs entries—post clearance adjustments

  Hoskyns Hunterskill South

  CHIEF Registry computerisation

  ICL

  Senior collectorate information Networking Documentation and planning program VME performance

  Inforem

  Gaming machine licence system Local area networks

  Kerman Associates

  GDN implementation

  Logica

  Integrated tariff

  Mindworks Partnership

  Investigation division operational planning system

  5

  Firm

  Assignments

  NCC

  CBT training study

  Octagon

  Telephone initiative study

  PA Consultants

  Project management: CHIEF

  PACTEL

  CHIEF

  Peat Marwick & McLintock

  Activity costing study Budget data capture Accounting controls

  Praxis

  Budget and manpower planning system

  Regional Software & Support Services

  Computer ordering and account systems

  RPT Computer Installation Limited

  Cabling requirements

  SPI Limited

  Operational planning systems

  System designers

  Management information systems

  Touche Ross

  Operational planning systems Reliability study: mainframes

  University of Bath

  Application of the financial management initiative

  University of Bristol

  Report on monitoring VAT

  Welcome Software Technology

  Database study

  Yale Data

  CHIEF

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount spent by Her Majesty's Stationery Office in 1988 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by Her Majesty's Stationery Office in 1988, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment.

  Mr. Lilley
  In 1988 total HMSO expenditure for these purposes was £230,000. Contracts awarded during 1988 were:

  Firm

  Subject of assignment

  Metron Technology Limited

  Capacity planning for mainframe computers

  MCP Management Consultants

  Development of revised remuneration scheme

  Touche Ross Management Consultants

  Review of customer coding system

  National Debt
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those organisations which have received or will receive repayments arising from his Budget decision to repay £14 billion of the national debt and the payment for each organisation.

  Mr. Lilley
  Detailed information about an individual's or organisation's holdings of debt is confidential. However, figures for net transactions in public sector debt by the main sectors of the economy are given in "Financial Statistics" table 2.6 and the Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin table 8.

  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the public sector borrowing requirement five, 10, 15 and 20 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Public sector borrowing requirement

  £ billion

  Ratio to GDP (per cent.)

  1968–69

  0·4

  ¾

  1973–74

  4·3

  5¾

  1978–79

  9–2

  5¼

  1983–84

  9–7

  3¼

  These are in marked contrast to 1988–89 when the public sector is expected to show a net repayment of £14 billion, equivalent to 3 per cent. of GDP. The Government have also been able to budget for a £14 billion surplus in 1989–90.

  Pensions Schemes (Abatement)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will describe the purposes of the curent review of the policy of abatement in public service pension schemes; whether it will take account of shortages in qualified manpower, including the shortages of qualified teachers identified by the Department of Education and Science; whether it will take account of the abolition of the earnings rule for national insurance pensioners; when he expects the review to be concluded; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The long-standing policy of abating the public service pensions of people who are re-employed in the public service is currently being reviewed to see whether it needs to be modified in the light of the wider pensions choices now available and current management needs. Particular attention is being given, among other things, to the implications of the introduction of personal pensions and the effects which the existing policy has on recruitment and retention. The abolition of the earnings rule for national insurance pensioners is not immediately relevant to the abatement of public service pensions. The Government Departments responsible for the major public service schemes, including the teachers' superannuation scheme, are contributing to the review. It is expected to be completed this summer.

  Taxpayers (Confidentiality)
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will ensure that the new safeguards of confidentiality for taxpayers, to be included in the Finance Bill, in no way interfere with the Government's efforts to trace and seize the illegally gained assets of drug traffickers.

  Mr. Lilley
  Safeguarding the confidentiality of taxpayer information will not interfere with efforts to trace and seize illegally gained assets of drug traffickers. Provision in the Finance Bill 1989 will be confined to unauthorised disclosure of information held in the exercise of tax functions and relevant to tax or duty and, as drafted, does not include such matters as illegal trafficking in dangerous drugs which are not subject to tax or duty.

  Johnson Mathey
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in the light of the allegations contained in the book "The Marcos Dynasty" by Sterling Seagrove he will set up an inquiry into Johnson Mathey's bullion dealing.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 22 March 1989]: No.

  Public Sector Debt
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he computed the figure for the percentage of public sector debt to have been repaid by 31 March 1990 referred to in the Official Report, 15 March, column 431.

  Mr. Major
  [holding answer 23 March 1989]: The "Financial Statement and Budget Report" (paragraph 6.04) forecast that the stock of net public sector debt would be £157 billion at the end of 1988–89. On the assumption that the change in the stock of debt in 1989–90 will be the same as the PSDR forecast for that year, the stock of debt will be £143 billion at the end of the year. This is some 16 per cent. lower than the stock of debt at the beginning of 1987–88, estimated to have been £171 billion.

  OPCS (Interviewers)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any plans to introduce Civil Service pension provisions for interviewers employed by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 23 March 1989]: Office of Population Censuses and Surveys interviewers, in common with other staff engaged on a fee-paid basis, are not eligible for membership of the principal Civil Service pension scheme. Their level of fees, out of which they are

  Reduction( + )/Increase( - ) in income tax compared with 1978–79 indexed regime (£ million)

  Range of total income in 1989–90 (£)

  Number of units paying tax in 1989–90 (million)

  1979–80

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Under 5,000

  2·1

  170

  -30

  80

  170

  200

  240

  350

  350

  5,000 to 10,000

  6·5

  930

  210

  510

  810

  1,050

  1,500

  2,160

  2,160

  10,000 to 15,000

  5·2

  1,400

  750

  1,100

  1,390

  1,770

  2,480

  3,400

  3,410

  15,000 to 20,000

  3·3

  1,230

  750

  1,060

  1,280

  1,620

  2,290

  3,100

  3,100

  20,000 to 30,000

  2·8

  1,730

  1,170

  1,580

  1,800

  2,260

  3,140

  4,220

  4,220

  30,000 to 50,000

  1·1

  1,790

  1,290

  1,630

  1,760

  2,010

  2,490

  3,500

  3,500

  50,000 to 70,000

  0·2

  1,000

  820

  970

  1,000

  1,040

  1,120

  1,790

  1,790

  Over 70,000

  0·1

  2,400

  2,230

  2,690

  2,720

  2,730

  2,780

  4,720

  4,720

  Total

  21·3

  10,660

  7,190

  9,620

  10,920

  12,690

  16,040

  23,250

  23,260

  Average gain( + )/loss ( - ) per tax unit1 (£ per annum)

  Range of total income in 1989–90 (£)

  1979–80

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Under 5,000

  60

  -10

  30

  60

  70

  80

  120

  120

  5,000 to 10,000

  140

  30

  80

  120

  160

  220

  320

  320

  10,000 to 15,000

  270

  140

  210

  270

  340

  480

  660

  660

  15,000 to 20,000

  380

  230

  330

  390

  500

  700

  950

  950

  20,000 to 30,000

  610

  410

  560

  640

  800

  1,110

  1,490

  1,490

  30,000 to 50,000

  1,580

  1,130

  1,440

  1,560

  1,780

  2,190

  3,090

  3,090

  50,000 to 70,000

  4,550

  3,730

  4,410

  4,570

  4,740

  5,090

  8,130

  8,130

  Over 70,000

  16,670

  15,510

  18,680

  18,870

  18,990

  19,280

  32,790

  32,790

  Total

  470

  320

  430

  490

  560

  710

  1,030

  1,030

  1 Average gains and losses are calculated by reference to the estimated number who would be liable to pay tax under the indexed 1978–79 regime; this number is some 1,200,000 greater than the numbers paying tax in 1989–90, some 900,000 in the income range below £5,000 and 300,000 in the range £5,000 to £10,000.

  Note: All information is in terms of tax units—that is, married couples are counted as one and their incomes combined.
  8
  able to make their own pension arrangements, was set in the knowledge that the employment is not pensionable; and, in management's view, interviewers are paid the appropriate remuneration for the job. However, the trade union representing the staff concerned intend to submit evidence to support a claim that the total remuneration package for interviewers employed by OPCS should be substantially uplifted by providing for their membership of the PCSPS. The Treasury and OPCS management will consider further the claim for pension ability very carefully in the light of this evidence; but it would be necessary to look for an offsetting adjustment to the present level of fees in order to provide for membership of the PCSPS, or some other pension arrangement, unless an increase in the remuneration for interviewers were found to be justified.

  Tax Changes
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update, to take account of the 1989 Budget, the information on tax changes contained in his reply to the hon. Member for Oldham, West of 21 October 1986,Official Report, columns 807–8.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 23 March 1989]: The information is in the tables. For each financial year shown, the tables compare the yield from the tax regime in that year with the 1978–79 tax regime. All estimates are based on a provisional 1989–90 income base projected from the 1986–87 survey of personal incomes and all tax regimes have been indexed to 1989–90 levels by reference to the statutory formula. The comparisons therefore allow for budgetary changes in income tax rates and allowances, but not for any changes since 1978–79 in the definition of the income tax base. Further information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Taxable Income
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish his best estimates of the aggregate taxable income for 1988–89 in each(a) county, (b) former metropolitan county, (c) the Greater London area, (d) metropolitan district and (e) London borough area.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 22 March 1989]: The latest year for which estimates for counties in Great Britain are available is 1986–87: they are provided in the accompanying table. I regret that estimates for Northern Ireland counties, for metropolitan districts and for London boroughs are not available.

  County

  Taxable income £ million

  English counties

  Cleveland

  1,320

  Cumbria

  1,340

  Durham

  1,150

  Northumberland

  850

  Humberside

  1,590

  North Yorkshire

  2,090

  Cheshire

  3,660

  Lancashire

  4,440

  Derbyshire

  1,990

  Leicestershire

  1,980

  Lincolnshire

  1,170

  Northamptonshire

  1,180

  Nottinghamshire

  2,070

  Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  1,530

  Shropshire

  906

  Staffordshire

  2,180

  Warwickshire

  1,360

  Cambridgeshire

  1,490

  Norfolk

  1,650

  Suffolk

  1,380

  Bedfordshire

  1,360

  Berkshire

  2,600

  Buckinghamshire

  1,950

  East Sussex

  1,530

  Essex

  5,690

  Hampshire

  3,870

  Hertfordshire

  3,240

  10

  County

  Taxable income £ million

  Kent

  5,620

  Oxfordshire

  1,310

  Surrey

  6,360

  West Sussex

  2,190

  Isle of Wight

  258

  Avon

  2,330

  Cornwall

  773

  Devon

  2,070

  Dorset

  1,720

  Gloucestershire

  1,420

  Somerset

  1,060

  Wiltshire

  1,400

  English metropolitan counties

  Tyne and Wear

  2,020

  South Yorkshire

  2,330

  West Yorkshire

  4,450

  Greater London

  16,300

  West Midlands

  5,310

  Greater Manchester

  3,440

  Merseyside

  2,600

  Welsh counties

  Clwyd

  837

  Dyfed

  575

  Gwent

  729

  Gwynedd

  431

  Mid Glamorgan

  737

  Powys

  249

  South Glamorgan

  909

  West Glamorgan

  577

  Scottish regions

  Borders

  213

  Central

  650

  Dumfries

  237

  Fife

  797

  Grampian

  1,290

  Highland

  337

  Lothian

  1,690

  Strathclyde

  4,440

  Tayside

  810

  Island authorities

  153

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Brazilian Rain Forest
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with Brazil about the destruction of the rain forest.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs raised this question during the visit to London on 9–10 March by the Secretary General of the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He left Sr Flecha de Lima in no doubt as to the strength of feeling in this country about the rate of destruction. I also conveyed our concerns during that visit, as I also had done earlier in conversation with the President of Brazil during my visit in November 1988.

  I refer the hon. Member to my speech on the rain forests issue in the debate on 13 March following the Consolidated Fund Bill.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further programmes he intends supporting in Brazil to assist in arresting the destruction of the tropical rain forest.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Following discussions with the Secretary-General of the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs during his recent visit to London, we are considering, at his request, what support further to that being provided for the Maraca rainforest we could give to scientific work or technical assistance for the rain forests. We shall also be discussing these issues with the Secretary-General of the Brazilian Ministry of the Interior when he visits London later this month.

  Sudan
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further measures he is taking to assist the United Nations Organisation's and other efforts to achieve peace and relief in the Sudan, following the recent United Nations conference in Khartoum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  On 3 April my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Overseas Development announced a further contribution of £5 million towards relief operations in Southern Sudan. Of this, £2 million will be channelled through the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), £2 million through United Nations Agencies (UNICEF and the World Food Programme) and £1 million through British non-government organisations. This is in addition to the £14·4 million in emergency aid provided to Sudan in 1988. We continue to urge all parties in Sudan to work for the speedy implementation of the plan of action agreed at last month's United Nations conference in Khartoum.

  West German Foreign Minister
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet his West German counterpart; and what matters will be discussed.
  12
  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend will next meet Herr Genscher at the Foreign Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 24–25 April where a range of European Community issues will be discussed.

  Iran
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to European Economic Community Governments about the decision of those member states who have replaced their ambassadors in Iran; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  EC Foreign Ministers agreed on 20 March that their heads of mission, who had been temporarily withdrawn from Tehran for consultations, could return to Iran if national circumstances required this. Returning heads of mission will carry the strong message that the Iranian death threats remain unacceptable.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the recent agreement of the Council of Foreign Ministers on relations with Iran made provision for member states to consult the United Kingdom if they wished to reappoint ambassadors to Iran; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have kept in close contact with our European partners over our response to the Iranian threats against Salman Rushdie and his publishers. We have been heartened by the solidarity shown by the Twelve. The strong position of principle adopted on 20 February was reaffirmed by EC Foreign Ministers on 20 March. It was never intended that heads of mission should stay away indefinitely. The decision that heads of mission could return to Iran was taken after full consultation between the EC Foreign Ministers. The ban on high level contacts remains in place.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many member states of the European Economic Community closed their embassies in Iran following the decision of the United Kingdom to break off diplomatic relations with Iran.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No member states of the EC closed their embassies in Iran following the break in diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and Iran. All EC member states withdrew their heads of mission in Tehran for consultations in response to the Iranian threats against Salman Rushdie and his publishers.

  Crete Campaign (Medal)
  Dr. Glyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in the light of the feelings of those who fought in the Crete campaign in 1940–41, who have not had official recognition in the form of a medal, he will waive any formalities which debar the award or acceptance of such a medal.

  Mr. Eggar
  Any official foreign medal designed to be worn which might be offered to British subjects in connection with the Crete campaign 1940–41 would be subject to the Foreign and Commonwealth Orders Regulations 1969, a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House in reply to a question by my right
  13
  hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) answered on 27 May 1988. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not have discretion to waive the provisions of these regulations, which are applied consistently to all requests from foreign Governments to bestow honours, decorations and medals on United Kingdom citizens.

  Computer Consultants
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total amount spent by his Department in 1988 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by his Department in 1988, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment.

  Mr. Eggar
  Expenditure for 1988–89 financial year on management and computer consultancy was:

  £

  Management consultancy

  68,699

  Computer consultancy

  1,422,900

  Individual contracts awarded during the year were:

  Management

  Moon Associates

  Study of FCO publications

  Market and Opinion Research International

  Staff communications survey

  Jaycroft Limited

  United Nations documents in the FCO

  Brian J. Stent

  Purchasing arrangements in FCO

  Pergamon Technical Services International

  Re-organisation of diplomatic services procedure

  Metier

  Resource and project management information study

  Computer consultancies

  Data General Ltd.

  Management information system

  Enever Systems Ltd.

  Management information system

  Phase 3 Systems Ltd.

  Management information system

  Kinesis Computing Ltd.

  Development of overseas systems

  BIS Applied Systems Ltd.

  Development of overseas systems

  Express Computer Consultants

  Development of financial system

  Logica UK Ltd.

  (i) Development of overseas systems

  (ii) FOLIOS consultancy studies

  Computer Sciences Co. Ltd.

  FOLIOS consultancy studies

  Systems Designers Ltd.

  FOLIOS consultancy studies

  Psychometric R & D Management Systems

  FOLIOS consultancy studies

  PA Consultancy Systems

  FOLIOS consultancy studies

  The Instruction Set

  (i) FOLIOS consultancy studies

  (ii) Administration records consultancy

  Price Waterhouse

  Administrative records consultancy

  14

  Computer consultancies

  Information Resources Ltd.

  (i) A financial estimates system

  (ii) An overseas estates financial system

  Kings Brook Information Associates

  Replacement of library and records system

  Discharged Prisoners
  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will state against each member country of the European Community what amount of money, travel allowance or other benefit, is given by that country(a) to British citizens and (b) to its own nationals on discharge from prison in that country.

  Mr. Eggar
  Payments made to British nationals on discharge from prisons in other European Community countries are listed below. Except for Portugal, no member state makes a distinction between British and host nationals in their rules governing discharge from prison.Belgium: No discharge grant. Half of any earnings paid on release. Deportees with funds are required to pay their rail/ferry fares. In needy cases, prison social/welfare funds may contribute to homeward travel costs.
  Denmark: No discharge grant. Journey paid to place of residence within Denmark. Deportees' journey home paid for, if unable to pay themselves.
  France: No discharge grant. Prisoners can seek assistance from probation committees in their home towns. If no funds are forthcoming from prisoners' resources, prison can provide ticket to place of former residence, including country of origin.
  Federal Republic of Germany: Practice varies between states (Lander). No discharge grant. A proportion of any earnings paid on release. Access to social security benefits. Travel payments range from cost of travel to nearest consular/diplomatic representation to cost of travel to the United Kingdorn plus minimal subsistence.
  Greece: No discharge grant. If prisoners have no funds they are referred to the nearest Organisation for Employment and Manpower which may grant relief to cover board and lodging for maximum of three months. No travel expenses.
  Ireland: Gratuity paid on discharge, based on work carried out during period of incarceration. Surface travel is paid from prison to home address, the city where case was tried or to a convenient port. In exceptional circumstances ferry/air fares are paid to enable discharged prisoners to return to country of origin.
  Italy: No discharge grant or travel expenses. Where an expulsion order has been issued and the prisoner has no funds the Italian Government will pay for repatriation.
  Luxembourg: No discharge or travel expenses. Prisoners are expected to fund travel home etc. from money earned whilst in prison. However, prisoners without funds would get a ticket from a prison welfare group or the Ministry of Justice. Those resident in Luxembourg before their arrest are also eligible for accommodation costs to be paid while unemployed.
  The Netherlands: No discharge grant. Discharged prisoners without funds are entitled to social security income support. Travel home, within the Netherlands, is paid. Deportees with funds must contribute to the fare home.
  Portugal: No discharge grant or travel expenses are paid to prisoners of any nationality. In cases of real need, Portuguese nationals may receive basic subsistence and travel expenses.

  15
  Foreign nationals are referred to their embassies if they have no funds. The Portuguese Government will pay all or part of the repatriation costs of those prisoners served with expulsion orders who cannot pay themselves.
  Spain: No discharge grant paid automatically. In cases of need, prisoners may apply to Ministry of Justice for a travel allowance, accommodation expenses and family allowance. The Spanish Government pay for repatriation where expulsion is part of the sentence.

  British Citizens (Convictions and Imprisonment)
  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out for the last five years as at a common date, and against each country in which they are held, the number of British citizens convicted in those countries and imprisoned there and against each (i) the nature of the offence and (ii) the duration of the sentence.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  British Citizens (Imprisonment)
  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British citizens presently imprisoned overseas have dependent relatives in the United Kingdom who are in receipt of income support or other benefits.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have no knowledge of the personal financial circumstances of dependents of British citizens imprisoned overseas.

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Brent, East on 8 February,Official Report, column 731, (a) which private security firms have been used by his Department, (b) where they have been deployed and (c) at what cost to his Department in each year from 1979 to the current date; what was the total cost to his Department of the duties undertaken by Zeus Security Guards Ltd. in 1982 and 1983; what were the access control duties performed by Zeus Security Guards Ltd. in 1982 and 1983.

  Mr. Eggar
  Detailed information on this subject is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Falkland Islands
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in view of changes of fishing and commercial policy by the Falkland Islands Government, if he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards British fishing companies in the Falklands and the role to be played by British interests in maintaining the economic development of the islands.

  Mr. Eggar
  We welcome the opportunities which the Falklands fishery offers British fishing companies and 16
  encourage them to make the effort and commitment to participate in its successful exploitations. So do the Falkland Islands Government. British commercial interests are playing a key role in infrastructural development, including a new telecommunications system, secondary school, housing and other building works. We shall continue to encourage British participation in the expanding economy of the Falkland Islands.

  Lomé Conventions
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what Her Majesty's Government hopes will emerge from Lomé IV.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We hope that the current renegotiation will produce a successor to Lomé III which will continue to provide a framework for effective co-operation between the Community and the ACP states in the spheres of both trade and aid.

  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now withdraw the British tranche to the Lomé conventions, in view of the conduct of the Ethiopian Government.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 27 February at column 1.

  Private Investment
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the level of private capital funds invested overseas for development purposes as a percentage of gross national product during the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The latest available figures for private direct investment, bank lending and grants by voluntary agencies in developing countries, as a percentage of gross national product, are as follows:

  Per cent.

  1983

  0·64

  1984

  0·55

  1985

  0·18

  1986

  0·77

  1987

  -0·05

TRANSPORT

  Road Casualties
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of fatal and serious road casualties among children aged 5 to 14 years for each year from 1965 to the nearest available year between October and February for the following hours of the day(a) 7 to 8 am, (b) 8 to 9 am, (c) 9 to 10 am, (d) 3 to 4 pm, (e) 5 to 6 pm and (f) 6 to 7 pm.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information requested is available only from 1979. This is given in the table.
  17

  Fatal and serious casualties among children aged 5–14 years by time of day between October and February: 1979–87

  7–8 am

  8–9 am

  9–10 am

  3–4 pm

  4–5 pm

  5–6 pm

  6–7 pm

  Rest

  Total

  1979–80

  47

  404

  108

  418

  729

  423

  263

  1,295

  3,687

  1980–81

  63

  354

  79

  415

  586

  383

  232

  1,286

  3,398

  1981–82

  46

  260

  79

  400

  562

  325

  232

  1,204

  3,108

  1982–83

  39

  346

  81

  471

  553

  365

  231

  1,237

  3,323

  1983–84

  50

  356

  60

  487

  581

  372

  261

  1,227

  3,394

  1984–85

  48

  324

  78

  434

  492

  356

  271

  1,143

  3,146

  1985–86

  46

  309

  88

  469

  489

  348

  244

  1,192

  3,185

  1986–87

  37

  267

  68

  355

  402

  286

  223

  960

  2,598

  Heavy Lorries
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations have been made to him regarding(a) exceeding the speed limit and (b) hazardous overtaking involving heavy lorries; what prosecutions have taken place in the past years with regard to these two offences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department receives many representations about the full range of road safety issues.

  We devote considerable effort to improving driver behaviour. Last year my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced a package of measures dealing specifically with motorway safety, and aimed in particular at improving driver behaviour.

  Hazardous overtaking is not a specific offence in road traffic law, but drivers who perform dangerous manoeuvres can be prosecuted for either reckless or careless driving.

  Statistics on road traffic offences are published annually by the Government statistical service in the supplementary tables on offences relating to motor vehicles England and Wales.

  Lydd Airport
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he has given to plans to extend Lydd airport in terms of the increased air traffic over south-east England.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A planning application by Lydd Airport Group Limited to extend the airport runway was called in for determination by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in July last year. The inspector who conducted the inquiry into the proposal has now reported to my right hon. Friend, who will announce his decision as soon as possible.

  Random Breath Testing
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has relating to New South Wales regarding(a) the percentage reduction in the average number of fatal crashes in the five years after the introduction of random breath testing, (b) the percentage reduction in the average number of alcohol-related fatal and serious accidents in the four years after the introduction of random breath testing and (c) the percentage reduction in the average number of drivers and riders killed over the legal limit in the four years after the introduction of random breath testing.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Random breath testing was introduced in New South Wales in December 1982. It has 18
  been accompanied by a sustained publicity campaign and a high level of police enforcement activity which aims to test one in every three drivers per year.

  Since 1982 the percentage of drivers killed while over the legal limit has fallen from 40 to 34 per cent. in 1986—a drop of 6 per cent.

  Over the same period in this country, the decline has been from 36 to 25 per cent., a drop of 11 per cent—nearly double that of New South Wales.

  Assessments of enforcement strategy in New South Wales and other Australian states where RBT is used frequently draw attention to the impact of high levels of police activity and publicity as important factors, as distinct from the actual method of enforcement.

  Research carried out by the school of behavioural sciences, Macquarie university, and the traffic authority of New South Wales in 1988 gives the following information:

  (a) the number of fatal crashes fell by 22 per cent., from an average of 22·12 per week in the five years before the introduction of random breath testing to an average of 17·23 per week in the five years after;

  (b) the number of alcohol-related fatal and serious injury accidents fell from an average of 13·43 per week in the five years before to 8·67 in the four years after, a decline of 35 per cent.;

  (c) the average number of drivers and riders killed while over the legal limit dropped from 4–36 per week in the three years before RBT to 2–81 in the four years after, a fall of 36 per cent.

  Simple comparisons and statistics may be misleading; for instance, the legal limit for blood alcohol content in New South Wales is 50 mg/ml and in this country it is 80 mg/ml.

  Microlight Aircraft
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many prosecutions have been made under section 48 (1)(a) of the Civil Aviation Act 1949; how many of these involved microlight aircraft; and, in this respect:, what was the outcome of each.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Section 48 of the Civil Aviation Act 1949, which provided power to give effect in the United Kingdom to the Rome convention 1933 relating to damage caused by aircraft to third parties on the surface, was never brought into operation. It was repealed by section 26 of the Civil Aviation Act 1968.

  Goods Vehicles (Speed limiters)
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out, in tabular form, in respect of each of the countries of the EEC, in respect of goods vehicles with a weight greater than 3·5 tonnes: the maximum speed in miles per hour on motorways and the maximum speed in miles per hour on non-motorway roads; whether there is currently a mandatory requirement to fit speed limiters;
  19
  and what is the proportion of all such vehicles registered within that country which are estimated to have been fitted with such speed limiters.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The following is derived from a table provided by the EC Commission in January 1989, in respect of heavy goods vehicles:

  Maximum speeds (mph)

  Member State

  Motorway

  Expressway

  Other Road

  Belgium

  56

  56

  37

  Denmark

  43

  43

  43

  FR Germany

  50

  37

  43

  France

  50

  50

  37

  Greece

  37

  37

  37

  Republic of Ireland

  35

  35

  35

  Italy

  50

  37

  37

  Luxembourg

  37

  37

  37

  Netherlands

  50

  50

  37

  United Kingdom

  60

  50

  140

  Spain

  62

  50

  43

  Portugal

  50

  43

  37

  1 30 mph in built-up areas.

  There are a few variations according to operating weights. The information must be treated with some caution because the classification of roads varies between member states.

  The information requested on speed limiters is not available, although I understand that in France new vehicles over 10 tonnes gross vehicle weight must be fitted with speed limiters and that in the Federal Republic of Germany mobile cranes must be so fitted. In the United Kingdom, coaches are required to be fitted with speed limiters over the next two years. The number of speed limiters fitted voluntarily to heavy goods vehicles is not known.

  Service Areas (Baby Changing)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will take steps to ensure that facilities provided for the changing and feeding of babies at motorway service areas can be used by male as well as female parents or carers.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  At new motorway service areas we require a nursing mothers' room. Operators are not required by their leases to provide such facilities at older motorway service areas. Some already do so voluntarily and others will be encouraged to provide them when other alterations are being made.

  Considerations of privacy, in particular for breast feeding, preclude any general sharing of such facilities by men looking after babies. We do not currently propose to require any separate provision for men. If demand builds up for this, we will reconsider the position in consultation with the operators.

  Cross-Channel Freight Traffic
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Stockport,Official Report, 20 March, column 399, whether he is proposing to make any assessment of cross-Channel freight traffic in total and by mode by 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department has no plans to make such an assessment.

  Passenger Ferries
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, further to his reply of 13 March,Official Report, columns 120–1, he will list the names of the small number of roll-on/roll off passenger ferries built before 1980, where modification is not a realistic proposition and the names of their owners; and when in each case they plan to withdraw them from service.

  Mr. Portillo
  All 73 pre-1980 ferries in use at the moment comply fully with the current international convention for safety of life at sea (SOLAS). The Sheen report recommended that a higher standard of stability in the damaged condition should be applied to these ships. The majority of the ships which did not comply with this higher standard have been, or will be, modified by their owners to achieve compliance.

  The owners have made known the names of the ships for which we understand modification is not a realistic proposition. These are (registered owner's name in brackets):

  Darnia—(James Fisher & Sons Ltd.)

  Earl Granville—(W & G Industrial Leasing Ltd.)

  Earl Harold—(Sealink UK Ltd.)

  Tynwald—(Sealink UK Ltd.)

  St. Ola—(P & O Ferries Ltd.)

  Pride of Canterbury—(P & O European Ferries (Dover) Ltd.)

  Pride of Hythe—(P & O European Ferries (Dover) Ltd.)

  Initial indications are that the owners will not retain these ships for more than about another three years. Discussions on that continue.

  Airline Safety (Departmental Warning)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will publish the full text of the warning and the supplementary circular his Department issued on airline safety following the discovery of a bomb in a radio cassette player in Frankfurt in October 1988.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No. It is not our practice to publish communications between the Department and the industry about aviation security matters. To do so only benefits terrorists and hinders security.

  Thames Line River Services
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newham, South,Official Report, 16 March, column 284, he will give the considerations and calculations relating to his decision to provide approximately £400,000 of public support to Thames Line River Services in central London, together with the relevant vote in the current estimates, the expected means of payment and any conditions relating to the grant.

  Mr. Portillo
  The decision to provide up to £500,000 of grant took into account the benefits to the community of relief of road congestion and the encouragement of development of riverside areas in need of regeneration. The grant will be met from the administration and transport services vote (class VIII, vote 2). Payment of grant is limited to is application to the promotion and improvement of the services, and is conditional upon a private sector contribution of up to £2 million, to be paid on a pro rata basis, and to the provision of appropriate management reports and accounts.
  21
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated or actual number of passengers and passenger miles, respectively, carried by Thames Line River Services in the year 1988, or financial year 1988–89, together with the comparable estimates for the financial year 1989–90; and what is the expected public subsidy, or its range, per passenger and per passenger mile, respectively.

  Mr. Portillo
  Thames Line estimates that some 138,000 passengers were carried in its first nine months of operation to February 1989. A progressive and substantial increase in patronage is expected during the next three years, but the forecast of the business are commercially confidential.

  Sir Keith Bright (Resignation)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he can now announce the terms on which Sir Keith Bright resigned from London Transport.

  Mr. Portillo
  The terms are still under discussion.

  European Maritime Policy
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive the proposals from the Commission of the EEC for a second stage of European maritime policy; what time limit he has set for the production of such proposals; whether such proposals have yet been forwarded by the Commission to the Council; and if he will make representations to the Commission on the need for greater urgency in dealing with this matter.

  Mr. Portillo
  We continue to press the Commission. We understand that it aims to produce proposals for the June Council of Transport Ministers.

  Trunk Roads (Review)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has completed his review of the trunk road network; and if he is now in a position to further improve roads benefiting Suffolk and Norfolk.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The review of the trunk road programme is in progress. Possible improvements to trunk roads benefiting Suffolk and Norfolk are being considered along with many other candidates for inclusion on their merits for a share of the resources available. We expect to make an announcement by early summer.

  Railway Accident (Warrington)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to place in the Library a copy of the detailed report of the accident at Arpley sidings, Warrington, on 27 February, when this has been submitted by the British Railways Board to the railway inspectorate at the Department of Transport.

  Mr. Portillo
  The railway inspectorate is to hold an inquiry into this accident. The report will be published.

  Britannia Bridge, Limehouse
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who was consulted on the effects on safety or a reversible lane on the Britannia bridge on the Commercial road at Limehouse; and if he will make the documents containing the advice available in the Library.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The decision that site restrictions and safety considerations rule out the use of a reversible lane at Britannia bridge was based on the professional judgment of the Department's officials.

  British Rail (Provincial Services)
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he proposes to authorise any further investment in British Rail's provincial services.

  Mr. Portillo
  We have authorised the purchase by British Rail of another 56 class 158 express vehicles at a cost of about £20 million. They will be built at BREL immediately after the 138 vehicles which we approved in January. The first of all these new vehicles should be entering service by early 1991.

  London Assessment Studies
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many visits he has made to any of the route options of the east London assessment study; how many meetings he has had with hon. Members of constituencies affected; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I have not made any such visits. It is for the consultants to assess their options at this stage. I have had meetings with most hon. Members concerned.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information his Department has about the use of routes in the east London assessment study area by heavy lorries, commuter cars and public transport; and if he will make a statement on comparative figures for each of the last eight years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information that the hon. Member requests is not available except at disproportionate cost.

  The most comprehensive sources of information for the east London assessment study area is the consultants' stage 1 report, copies of which are in the Library.

  Figures available for traffic entering central London in the morning peak hours for the following years are:

  Cars

  Heavy goods vehicles

  Buses/coaches

  1979

  128,400

  3,300

  4,200

  1981

  129,500

  2,750

  4,350

  1983

  124,400

  2,450

  4,500

  1985

  127,000

  2,000

  4,300

  1987

  123,350

  1,900

  3,650

  Source: DTP.

  Similar figures for the numbers of commuters in the morning peak are:

  23

  Cars Thousands

  British Rail Thousands

  London Regional Transport rail Thousands

  London Regional Transport bus Thousands

  Total including coaches and cycles Thousands

  1980

  184

  412

  305

  103

  1,031

  1981

  173

  394

  336

  105

  1,037

  1982

  197

  390

  283

  99

  1,013

  1983

  180

  384

  323

  97

  1,026

  1984

  180

  386

  351

  94

  1,049

  1985

  171

  401

  364

  94

  1,069

  1986

  166

  421

  381

  91

  1,093

  1987

  162

  449

  403

  79

  1,125

  Sources: British Rail/London Regional Transport.

  The figures show that the total number of commuters has increased by 91 per cent. since 1980, that the number commuting by car has fallen substantially and that road traffic entering central London in the morning peak has decreased.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has received against the public walk road option in the east London assessment study; how many phone calls, have been made to his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A number of representations, including phone calls, have been received from action groups, amenity groups, residents associations, members of the public and hon. Members about the consultant's options that involve use of the public walk.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to announce his intentions with regard to any routes affected by the assessment studies in London.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  It is too soon to say.

  Highgate—Finsbury Park (Public Walk)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department has any plans for a light railway development along the route of the public walk between Highgate and Finsbury Park; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  No. A light railway is one of the options being considered by the consultants for the east London assessment study.

  Trawlers (Medical Supplies)
  Mr. Barry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the medical supplies required by the latest European Economic Community directive for(a) a trawler at sea for more than eight hours and (b) a trawler at sea for more than 24 hours.

  Mr. Portillo
  No such directive has been adopted; nor has any proposal for a draft directive yet been made by the Commission to the Council of Ministers.

  Lindane Container (Channel)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he anticipates the recovery of the Lindane container lost in the Channel.

  Mr. Portillo
  The commercial container of Lindane was lost in an area of the Channel in which under a bilateral 24
  agreement the French authorities are responsible for taking counter-pollution action. They are undertaking an extensive search for the lost container and the Department's marine pollution control unit is maintaining close contact with them. As the container has not yet been located, a time scale for recovery cannot be predicted.

  Departmental Mail (Bomb Attack)
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whether he gave any indication to the Post Office on or before 16 March as to when his Department believed that the letters to airport authorities and Pan American Airlines had been posted; and what representations he made to the Post Office in relation to the Post Office's plans to make a statement refuting allegations that the letters had been lost;

  (2) what contact took place between the Post Office and his Department on matters relating to the letter he sent to airport authorities and Pan American Airlines warning them of the threatened bomb attack in the week beginning 12 March; and what assurances were sought by, or given to, the Post Office by his Department on whether a statement would be made on 16 March by his Department on this matter.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 23 March 1989]: Post Office officials were in touch with those of the Department during the afternoon and evening of 16 March. We made it clear that the circular dated 19 December had not been posted until later and that the Department had no complaints about the way the Post Office had handled it. My right hon. Friend said so that afternoon.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Category A Prisoners
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the breakdown of category A prisoners in England and Wales under the groupings(a) convicted Irish Republican Army terrorists, (b) international terrorists, (c) murderers, (d) armed robbers, (e) rapists, (f) drug dealers, and (g) others (i) in total and (ii) listed by each prison.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information readily available centrally is given in the following table. Further figures could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.
  25

  Convicted adult male prisoners in category A in prisons in England and Wales on 31 December 1988: by type of offender

  IRA terrorists

  Other terrorists

  Sex offenders including some murderers

  Armed robbers and drugs dealers

  Others (mainly murderers)

  Totals

  Albany

  7

  5

  27

  17

  7

  63

  Birmingham

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  4

  Bristol

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Chelmsford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Coldingley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Frankland

  7

  4

  11

  22

  15

  59

  Full Sutton

  4

  1

  7

  11

  8

  31

  Gartree

  9

  4

  3

  19

  15

  50

  Hull

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  4

  Leeds

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  3

  Leicester

  3

  —

  2

  4

  1

  10

  Lincoln

  —

  —

  2

  —

  3

  5

  Liverpool

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  3

  Long Lartin

  7

  5

  16

  22

  19

  69

  Manchester

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  4

  Parkhurst

  7

  2

  2

  14

  17

  42

  Wakefield

  —

  2

  49

  1

  18

  70

  Wandsworth

  —

  —

  2

  18

  2

  22

  Winchester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Wormwood Scrubs

  2

  —

  13

  3

  8

  26

  Totals

  46

  23

  139

  135

  127

  470

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) successful escapes and (b) unsuccessful escape attempts there have been from prisons in England and Wales by category A prisoners in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  During this period, there have been two incidents involving escapes from within prison establishments. In 1980, three unconvicted prisoners who had been provisionally placed in category A escaped from Brixton prison. In 1987, one provisional and one confirmed category A prisoner escaped from Gartree prison in a helicopter. Detailed inquiries were conducted following both incidents and measures were taken to prevent a similar escape in the future.

  The other information is not available in the form requested by my hon. Friend. Maximum security prisons have a high level of physical security designed to deter and prevent either an assisted or an unassisted escape attempt. Security measures are constantly under review.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy towards(a) parole and (b) rehabilitation for category A prisoners.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No prisoner, whatever his security category, is prevented from having his case considered for release on parole. However since one of the main concerns in considering suitability for parole is the safety of the

  Population1 of adult male sentenced prisoners in prisons and remand centres in England and Wales on 31 December 1988: by security category and prison

  Prison or remand centre (County)

  A

  B

  C

  D

  Not recorded

  Total population

  Remand centres

  Latchmere House (London)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  27

  27

  Risley (Cheshire)

  —

  1

  30

  1

  35

  67

  Local prisons

  Ashford (Surrey)

  —

  —

  4

  1

  16

  21

  Bedford (Bedford)

  —

  3

  47

  21

  23

  94

  Birmingham (West Midlands)

  4

  58

  297

  82

  88

  529

  Bristol (Avon)

  2

  104

  133

  30

  110

  379

  Brixton (London)

  —

  3

  8

  2

  113

  126

  Canterbury (Kent)

  —

  5

  33

  21

  38

  97

  26
  public, it is unlikely that a prisoner whilst in category A—the highest security category—would be released on licence.

  Category A prisoners are offered as full and constructive a regime as is consistent with the requirements of security and there are many opportunities for them to improve, for example, work and social skins and education. The aim, as with all prisoners, is to help them lead law-abiding and useful lives in custody and after release.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether category A prisoners are provided with assistance in drawing up their resettlement plans.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Yes. Assistance is freely available on request to all prisoners, regardless of security category, from the probation service and welfare organisations.

  Prisoner (Statistics)
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the numbers of category A, B and other prisoners in each prison in England and Wales. listed by prison and by county address.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The latest information readily available centrally is given in the following table.
  27

  Prison or remand centre (County)

  A

  B

  C

  D

  Not recorded

  Total population

  Cardiff (South Glamorgan)

  —

  14

  62

  16

  184

  276

  Chelmsford (Essex)

  1

  1

  3

  3

  88

  96

  Dorchester (Dorset)

  —

  31

  33

  2

  17

  83

  Durham (Durham)

  —

  57

  287

  50

  320

  714

  Exeter (Devon)

  —

  21

  40

  13

  130

  204

  Gloucester (Gloucester)

  —

  10

  100

  36

  52

  198

  Hull (Humberside)

  4

  29

  113

  59

  34

  239

  Leeds (West Yorkshire)

  3

  69

  207

  44

  208

  531

  Leicester (Leicestershire)

  10

  28

  91

  20

  37

  186

  Lewes (East Sussex)

  —

  13

  49

  11

  52

  125

  Lincoln (Lincolnshire)

  5

  21

  196

  35

  34

  291

  Liverpool (Merseyside)

  3

  147

  608

  53

  424

  1,235

  Manchester (Greater Manchester)

  4

  100

  434

  77

  248

  863

  Norwich (Norfolk)

  —

  12

  120

  14

  46

  192

  Oxford (Oxfordshire)

  —

  7

  51

  39

  28

  125

  Pentonville (London)

  —

  10

  144

  47

  397

  598

  Reading (Berkshire)

  —

  10

  48

  19

  49

  126

  Shrewsbury (Salop)

  —

  8

  83

  10

  77

  178

  Swansea (West Glamorgan)

  —

  13

  51

  10

  64

  138

  Wandsworth (London)

  22

  222

  400

  51

  761

  1,456

  Winchester (Hampshire)

  1

  71

  158

  16

  47

  293

  Wormwood Scrubs (London)

  26

  52

  18

  28

  271

  395

  Closed training prisons

  Acklington (Northumberland)

  —

  —

  394

  8

  23

  425

  Albany (Isle of Wight)

  63

  215

  58

  3

  45

  384

  Aldington (Kent)

  —

  —

  79

  20

  20

  119

  Ashwell (Leicestershire)

  —

  —

  310

  31

  24

  365

  Blantyre House (Kent)

  —

  —

  77

  1

  —

  78

  Blundeston (Suffolk)

  —

  151

  162

  36

  61

  410

  Camp Hill (Isle of Wight)

  —

  —

  382

  41

  66

  489

  Channings Wood (Devon)

  —

  —

  457

  41

  24

  522

  Coldingley (Surrey)

  1

  64

  151

  46

  35

  297

  Dartmoor (Devon)

  —

  352

  220

  26

  28

  626

  Erlestoke (Wiltshire)

  —

  3

  168

  25

  15

  211

  Featherstone (West Midlands)

  —

  —

  482

  44

  11

  537

  Frankland (Durham)

  59

  303

  17

  —

  16

  395

  Full Sutton (North Yorkshire)

  31

  147

  69

  2

  7

  256

  Garth (Lancashire)

  —

  207

  23

  —

  106

  336

  Gartree (Leicestershire)

  50

  228

  18

  —

  13

  309

  Grendon (Buckinghamshire)

  —

  116

  71

  5

  11

  203

  Haverigg (Cumbria)

  —

  —

  246

  11

  18

  275

  Highpoint (Suffolk)

  —

  —

  384

  88

  253

  725

  Lancaster (Lancashire)

  —

  —

  234

  15

  9

  258

  Lewes (East Sussex)

  —

  80

  22

  3

  20

  125

  Lindholme (South Yorkshire)

  —

  —

  527

  131

  44

  702

  Littlehey (Cambridgeshire)

  —

  —

  403

  14

  24

  441

  Long Lartin (Hereford and Worcester)

  69

  308

  12

  2

  10

  401

  Maidstone (Kent)

  —

  334

  144

  35

  27

  540

  Northeye (East Sussex)

  —

  —

  101

  33

  89

  223

  Norwich (Britannia) (Norfolk)

  —

  —

  119

  36

  39

  194

  Nottingham (Nottinghamshire)

  —

  115

  154

  15

  11

  295

  Parkhurst (Isle of Wight)

  42

  168

  14

  1

  10

  235

  Portsmouth (Kingston) (Hampshire)

  —

  122

  7

  5

  9

  143

  Preston (Lancashire)

  —

  1

  303

  19

  23

  346

  Ranby (Nottinghamshire)

  —

  —

  331

  12

  —

  343

  Send (Surrey)

  —

  —

  62

  16

  24

  102

  Shepton Mallet (Somerset)

  —

  —

  210

  16

  13

  239

  Stafford (Staffordshire)

  —

  —

  695

  50

  53

  798

  Stocken (Leicestershire)

  —

  —

  283

  7

  4

  294

  Swaleside (Kent)

  —

  171

  19

  8

  194

  392

  Thorp Arch (West Yorkshire)

  —

  —

  126

  21

  8

  155

  The Verne (Dorset)

  —

  —

  552

  20

  22

  594

  Wakefield (West Yorkshire)

  70

  563

  36

  17

  43

  729

  Wayland (Norfolk)

  —

  —

  362

  58

  55

  475

  Wymott (Lancashire)

  —

  —

  606

  49

  71

  726

  28 29

  Prison or remand centre (County)

  A

  B

  C

  D

  Not recorded

  Total population

  Open training prisons

  Ford (West Sussex)

  —

  —

  —

  493

  —

  493

  Highpoint (Suffolk)

  —

  —

  —

  69

  —

  69

  Kirkham (Lancashire)

  —

  —

  —

  537

  —

  537

  Leyhill (Gloucestershire)

  —

  —

  —

  370

  —

  370

  Morton Hall (Lincolnshire)

  —

  —

  —

  155

  —

  155

  North Sea Camp (Lincolnshire)

  —

  —

  —

  89

  —

  89

  Rudgate (West Yorkshire)

  —

  —

  —

  305

  —

  305

  Spring Hill (Buckinghamshire)

  —

  —

  —

  199

  —

  199

  Standford Hill (Kent)

  —

  —

  —

  387

  —

  387

  Sudbury (Derbyshire)

  —

  —

  —

  496

  —

  496

  All prisons and remand centres

  470

  4,768

  12,938

  4,922

  5,596

  28,694

  1 The figures are those recorded centrally and are approximate: detailed checking of individual cases would involve disproportionate cost.

  Crime (South Wales)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what factors account for the fact that the incidence of crime has risen in south Wales when it has fallen nationally.

  Mr. John Patten
  In south Wales in 1988, 116,988 offences were recorded compared to 111,642 in 1987. Burglaries fell by 5 per cent., but there were 7,000 more thefts of or from motor vehicles. The south Wales police will be targeting car crime in the coming year. Members of the public can help by taking sensible crime prevention measures.

  Prisoners (AIDS)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what social or medical studies are being made of prisoners identified as HIV positive, with or without symptoms, in Her Majesty's prisons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Statistical monitoring of reported cases is undertaken by the directorate of prison medical services for management purposes.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what training and how frequently prison officers, other staff and prisoners at Her Majesty's prison, Winson Green receive on AIDS-related illnesses; and by whom this is carried out.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Health care staff have received specialised training in the care and support of patients with AIDS and AIDS-related conditions, including in some cases practical experience in a National Health Service AIDS unit. External AIDS counselling courses have been attended by some staff including chaplains. A more general training programme, provided by the establishment's own training staff and intended for all operational

  Consultancy

  Assignment

  Express Computer Consultancy

  Software development for Financial Division

  Grafton

  Benchmark preparation for Police National Computer

  Grafton

  Software support for Police national computer

  Captain Hannant, Captain Stubbs

  Study on the application of cir legislation to police operations

  Hunterskill

  Programming support for Prison Service

  30
  staff, provides basic health and safety information and an understanding of the nature of AIDS and HIV infection at a level appropriate to their task of managing infected prisoners with no signs or symptons of illness. All operational staff have received some training of this kind and over 75 per cent. have seen a specially made prison service training film. This is a continuing programme. Prisoners have access to a wide range of educational material including videofilms and leaflets. A new educational package produced by the Department centrally for use throughout the prison service will be brought into use in the near future.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners at Her Majesty's prison Winson Green, identified as HIV positive(a) with symptoms and (b) without symptoms are being kept in prison hospital or other special accommodation.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  For reasons of medical confidentiality it is not our practice to disclose the number of current cases reported by individual establishments.

  Computer Consultants
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total amount spent by his Department in 1988 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by his Department in 1988, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment.

  Mr. Hurd
  The Home Office spent approximately £3,572,000 on management and computer consultancies in 1988. The following contracts were awarded to management or computer consultancy firms by the Home Office in 1988:
  31

  Consultancy

  Assignment

  ICL

  Systems analysis for Immigration and Nationality Department

  ICL

  Bootle Computer Bureau Network Support

  ICL

  System sizing for Immigration and Nationality Department

  IN2

  Post Administration programming support

  JSB

  Database support for computerisation of central records

  Kerman Associates

  IT Division technical support

  Logica

  Fire Department Brigade requirements study

  Logica

  Local Area Network study for Immigration and Nationality Department

  Metier

  Bootle Computer Bureau project management tool support

  Oasis

  Intelligency Knowledge Based Systems study

  Oracle

  Bootle Computer Bureau software support

  PA Management Consultants

  WARC project management

  PA Consulting

  Investment Appraisal support for Immigration and Nationality Department

  PA Consulting

  Police National Computer Office project management support

  PA Technology

  Proposal Evaluation: Automatic Fingerprint Recognition

  P-E Computer Services

  Bootle Computer Bureau programming support

  Peat Marwick McClintock

  Review of laundry service

  Peat Marwick McClintock

  IND Relocation Study

  SIA

  Fire Statistics Section hardware sizing trial

  Software AG

  Police National Computer Office software support (two contracts)

  St. George's Medical School

  Technical support from Forensic Science Service

  Touche Ross

  Management systems strategy for prison industries

  TSC Ltd.

  Police National Computer Office Operating System Support

  Thornhill Computer Services

  Bootle Computer Bureau programming support

  Dr. R. L. Williams

  Reviewing fingerprint evidence

  Yale Data

  IT Division technical support

  Aberdeen University

  Technical support for Scientific Research and Development Branch

  Ampex

  Videofile testing

  Batalas

  Police National Computer Office Quality Assurance support

  BBN

  Technical support for Scientific Research and Development Branch

  BIS

  Magistrates Court contingency study

  BIS

  Financial Systems support

  Cooper and Lybrand

  Assistance with training seminars in Prison Service

  Computer Search and Selection

  Immigration programming support

  CCTA

  IT Division Post Implementation Review

  Data Logic

  Local Area Networks study

  Dataflex

  Programming support for Prison Service

  Deloitte Haskins and Sells

  Improving Clerical Support Services to Her Majesty's Prison forms

  Deloitte Haskins and Sells

  Study of potential feasibility of private sector involvement in the remand system

  32

  33

  Consultancy

  Assignment

  Digitus

  IT Division technical support

  Eosys

  Police Requirements Network study

  Ewbank Preece

  Microwave study

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total amount spent by the Metropolitan police in 1988 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by the Metropolitan police in 1988, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment.

  Firm

  Contracts

  Geoff Ford

  Consultancy on Mechanical and Electrical Branch Control Information Systems.

  Digitus

  Programming advice on Territorial Operations Systems.

  Safe Computing

  Setting up software for police payroll.

  Chess Valley

  Enhancement to G10 crime statistics input system.

  Carnell

  Consultancy on civil staff payroll.

  ICL

  Technical support on hardware and software including installation of new system and super-dualling of two ICL 2988 machines.

  ICL

  Software enhancement.

  Gerard Systems

  Artemis Consultancy.

  Gresham Software Skills Ltd

  Operating system conversion from DME to VME.

  STS Nescourse

  Consultancy advice on Querymaster software package.

  Hoskyns

  Technical advice on VMS operating system

  Prolog

  Programming work on cheque reconciliation suites.

  Pergamon Infotech

  Provision of documentation etc. for Cautions Index project.

  Unisys

  Software enhancement for police computers at outer London magistrates' courts.

  CCTA

  Crime Report Information System (CRIS) benefits evaluation.

  Deloitte Haskins & Sells

  Data modelling consultancy.

  Intra Systems

  Consultancy to review CRIS training programme.

  Scicon Ltd

  Production of simulation model of a CID office.

  Ernst & Whinney

  Data envelope. Study of MP divisions.

  Unisys

  Manpower services in connection with replacement command and control system.

  Peat Marwick McLintock

  Re-location of stores.

  Peat Marwick McLintock

  Review of options for direct supply of goods to users.

  Wolff Olins

  Corporate Identity consultancy.

  D.W.J. Consultants

  Procurement consultancy

  Touche Ross

  Catering consultancy.

  Hay Management Consultants Ltd

  Alternative civil staff pay arrangements.

  Police National Computer (Report)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make it his policy to
  34
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the Metropolitan police spent an estimated £1,220,000 on management and computer consultancies in 1988–89.

  The following contracts were awarded in 1988

  publish the report of the review of the police national computer being carried out by Country Nat West when it has been completed.
  35
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  This report has only just been received and we have yet to decide how best to carry out consultations on its conclusion.

  Fatal Accidents (Police Vehicles)
  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fatal accidents during 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988 involved motor vehicles driven by suspected criminals who were being chased by the police.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Data Protection Act 1987
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Brent, East of 1 February,Official Report, column 254, what representations he has received concerning amendments to the terms of the Data Protection Act 1987.

  Mr. Renton
  I have received no other representations on those aspects of the Data Protection Act 1984 to which the hon. Member's earlier question referred.

  British Citizens
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning information supplied by Her Majesty's Government to the San Francisco immigration and naturalisation service about Mrs. Nina Hutchinson which formed the basis of the decision to refuse her entry into the United States of America in December 1988; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what representations he has received concerning exchanges of information under the proposed incorporation of the European treaty on mutual assistance into British law; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what information on British citizens is made available by Her Majesty's Government to other countries;

  (4) how many complaints have been received from British citizens who have travelled abroad concerning information about them supplied by Her Majesty's Government to other Governments.

  Mr. Hurd
  Two hon. Members have forwarded representations from the Troops Out movement claiming that one of its members was detained and removed from the United States of America on the basis of information provided by the Government. I am not prepared to comment on particular arrangements for exchanging information with other Governments or on individual cases. Apart from these representations, we are not aware of any other complaints about information supplied to other Governments.

  The Troops Out movement also expressed concern about the effect, as regards the exchange of information, of the United Kingdom's ratifying the European convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters. Legislation would be required before the United Kingdom could accede to this convention, the purpose of which is to enable one state to assist another in the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences. It is a precondition of
  36
  such assistance that criminal proceedings should be pending in the requesting state, or that initial investigations should have begun with a reasonable expectation that such proceedings will ensue.

  Category A Committee
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the role and composition of the category A committee.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The role of the committee is twofold:

  (i) to consider whether prisoners recently convicted of very serious crimes should be placed in security category A, which is reserved for those inmates whose escape from prison custody would be highly dangerous to the public or to the police or to the security of the State;

  (ii) to review, at least annually, the cases of all those who have been made category A;

  and to make recommendations to the Director General of the Prison Service.

  The committee comprises senior officials of prison service headquarters, governors of prisons normally holding category A prisoners, and a senior police officer.

  Mr. Albert Baker
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received since 1979 concerning the case of Mr. Albert Baker, currently prisoner No. 241254 in Her Majesty's prison Long Lartin.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Numerous inquiries and letters from hon. Members and noble Lords and members of the public have been received in support of Mr. Baker's requests to be transferred to Northern Ireland, but a detailed enumeration could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Metropolitan Police (Public Relations)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost to the Metropolitan police of the public relations budget for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that expenditure by the Metropolitan police on all forms of recruitment and other advertising, and other promotional literature, in each financial year since 1979–80 is as follows:

  £

  1979–80

  759,000

  1980–81

  967,000

  1981–82

  1,062,000

  1982–83

  1,028,000

  1983–84

  1,675,000

  1984–85

  1,747,000

  1985–86

  1,868,000

  1986–87

  2,269,000

  1987–88

  2,836,000

  11988–89

  3,397,000

  1 Estimate.

  Foleshill Information and Advice Centre, Coventry
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the
  37
  compatibility of that part of his Department's letter of 20 January, reference RDI 88 622/56/5, to Mr. Christopher Farmer, director of education at Coventry city council, which rejected section 11 funding for posts at the Foleshill information and advice centre, on the grounds that they would be assisting all sections of the community, with that part of the letter which rejected section 11 funding for a development work for the Asian sheltered residential accommodation on the grounds that the postholder would be working just for Asian clients; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 16 March 1989]: I am satisfied that the extracts from this Department's letter, which have been taken out of context, as can be seen from the full text which I have placed in the Library, are in no way incompatible. Coventry city council's applications for the posts in question did not identify what special need, particular to the relevant Commonwealth community, the proposed posts would address. Identification of such need is an essential pre-requisite for approval of section 11 grant. If Coventry city council requires further clarification, officials at the Home Office will be pleased to explain the reasons for refusal in greater detail.

EMPLOYMENT

  Employment Training
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of those referred by the employment service to ET complete their assessment with a training agent; what percentage of those who complete their assessment stay six days with a training manager; and what percentage of those originally referred by the employment service stay six days with a training manager.

  Mr. Nicholls
  It is estimated that to the end of January 1989 about 55 per cent. of those referred from the Employment Service to training agents agreed action plans. The number of people staying at least six days with a training manager is estimated to be about 80 per cent. of the total number of those who agree action plans. The number of trainees who stay at least six days with training managers is about 45 per cent. of the total of those referred from the Employment Service to training agents.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what have been the numbers and percentages of those who started on ET who did not complete their course.

  Mr. Nicholls
  It is estimated that of the 153,300 unemployed people who had started on employment training between 5 September 1988 and the end of January, about 23,000 or 15 per cent. had left the programme early without completing their planned programme of training. People leave the programme for a number of reasons including starting work.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the qualifications gained by trainees in the ET programme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what funds his Department has allocated for 38
  paying training bonuses to employment training trainees; how much has been paid out to date; and if he will give a breakdown showing how much of that money has been paid out in each of the local areas administered by the Training Agency.

  Mr. Nicholls
  These arrangements are funded from the overall resources available for employment training and there are no separate area budgets for this purpose. Up to end of February 1989 £84,518 has been paid.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much has been paid out through the underpinning arrangements to ET managers and agents since the start of employment training; and if he will give a breakdown showing how much of that money was paid out in each of the local areas administered by the Training Agency.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The underpinning arrangements are funded from the overall resource available for employment training and there are no separate area budgets for this purpose. Up to the end of February 1989 a total of £9,159,751 has been paid out to training managers, and £422,613 to training agents.

  Vocational Training
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the total numbers of(a) adult employees receiving vocational training, (b) young persons 18 years and under receiving vocational training and (c) all persons of employment age receiving vocational training in each year since 1970 or in those years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Cope
  Estimates from labour force surveys of persons receiving job-related training, are shown in the table. The labour force survey did not include questions on training which can be used to produce comparable estimates prior to 1984.

  Job-related training1—Great Britain, spring estimates

  thousands

  Year

  Employee of working age2

  Persons aged 16 to 18 years

  Persons of working age2

  1984

  1,806

  461

  2,518

  1985

  2,088

  574

  2,897

  1986

  2,176

  530

  3,003

  1987

  2,380

  530

  3,313

  31988

  2,776

  589

  3,806

  1 Persons who said that in the four week period prior to interview, they had taken part in any education or training connected with either their current job or a job they might be able to do in the future.

  2 Men aged 16 to 64, women aged 16 to 59.

  3 Preliminary estimates.

  Repetitive Strain Injury
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to fund research into the causes and effects of repetitive strain injury, and into preventive measures for it.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive is currently supporting two projects investigating repetitive strain injury through its extramural biomedical research programme, at the Institute of Occupational Medicine in Edinburgh and the university of Birmingham.

  Computer Consultants
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total amount spent by his Department in 1988 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by his Department in 1988, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment.

  Firm

  Subject of assignment

  AIMS Systems

  Quality Assurance review for major system

  AMP

  Software support for small firms centres system

  Arthur Andersen

  Benefit related payments system

  Arthur Young

  Consultancy for review of anti-fraud measures in selected systems

  Consultancy for management information systems

  Work on ES payments manual and testing of market

  National unemployment benefit system terminal study

  Glasgow Jobseeker

  Central processing in London and the South-East (SUPERVACS project)

  Colin Minton and Associates

  PER privatisation

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Consultancy and advice on major system

  D. E. Barnard Systems

  SUPERVACS—Technical assurance co-ordination

  SUPERVACS—Risk analysis for disaster site

  Falkman Communications

  Advice on ES internal communications

  Datasolve

  Computer-based training for the national unemployment benefit system

  Ferrari Software

  Consultancy for local area network specification

  Hoskyns

  Management of computer systems Software enhancements to major systems

  HUSAT

  National unemployment benefit system

  ICL

  Use of new techniques on major systems

  IDMS X consultancy

  Resolution of mainframe loading problems

  Quickbuild and data specification requirements

  ITM Ltd.

  Restart

  Kennedy Robinson Business Development Ltd.

  ES executive board workshop

  Learmouth and Burchett Management Systems

  PROMPT study

  Lloyd Northover

  Work on ES corporate identity

  Makrotest

  A study of the small firms service

  Michael Wesley Associates

  Production of careers service publicity guide

  PA Consultants

  A review of Government support for the tourism industry

  IT strategy for ES

  SEPACS study

  Feasibility study on SUPERVACS enhancements

  Pannell Kerr Foster Associates

  A review of the statistical needs of the tourism sector

  Peter Seal

  Quantity surveyor for structural surveys

  Professor Colin Gallagher (Newcastle University)

  Research into the role of small firms in job generation in the United Kingdom

  Sphinx Ltd.

  Adjudication office automation

  Thurrock Computing Services

  RESTART study

  Yale Data

  SSADM consultancy for major personnel project Advice on standards for testing critical systems Adjudication office automation

  40
  Mr. Cope
  The total amount spent by my Department (excluding the Training Commission/Agency) in 1988 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases, was £2·3 million.

  The following firms were awarded consultancy contracts by the Department of Employment group, excluding the Training Commission/Agency, during 1988:
  41
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total amount spent by the Training Commission in 1988 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by the Training Commission in 1988, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment.

  Consultants

  Subject of Assignment

  J. Ackroyd

  A consultant to enhance the existing database for the YTS expenditure forecasting model

  Bacie

  A consultant to look after a database of "LCP" information

  Butler Cox

  A consultancy to assist the Training Commission in evaluating the office technology project

  Camtec

  To provide assistance with the development of the MSC network

  CCTA

  To put a business case together (including investment appraisal aspects) for a local area network for the Training Commission at Moorfoot

  To undertake a scoping study of funding, charging, and management aspects of the MSC network

  Codd & Date

  To advise the Training Commission on the definition of a relational database

  Compact Business Computers LTD

  A consultant to develop a database for the employment training underpinning system

  Compsoft

  A consultant to provide guidance on the most efficient way to design and implement an accident database

  Coopers and Lybrand Associates

  A consultant to review the commission's corporate financial management strategy Consultant to provide project management support

  CMG Information Services

  System analysts to assist FSR with their development work

  EOYSYS

  A consultant to carry out a strategic review of the videoconferencing requirements within the DE Group

  GTC Project Ltd.

  Creation of a database for the employment training initiative monitoring system

  Harwell Computer Power

  Consultancy advice on the use of "STATUS"

  Hunterskill

  A consultant to provide SSADM support on the PDP project

  I-NET

  A consultant to review the Training Commission's network

  The Instruction Set

  To provide the Training Agency with advice and guidance on the selection of a software environment

  The Instruction Set

  A consultant to assist in the evaluation of the software environment

  National Council for Education

  To provide TAP with consultancy in the areas of strategy, planning, R and D projects

  The Networking Centre

  A consultant to produce a business analysis for the Moorfoot site

  Omicron

  A consultant to write a purchase order management system, and train staff in its use

  PA Computers and Telecommunications

  To provide advice and assistance in deciding where, and how, MSCs "MASCOT" system should be replicated in MSC HO

  A study to look into the office technology input to the infrastructure project

  PE Consulting Services

  System analyst to assist FSR with their development work

  Presenting with Style

  A consultant to provide training in the use of "Wordperfect" software for senior officers' secretaries

  Sherington Software

  A study to evaluate packages for transferring data from "ALL" to micros Programmers to assist the Training Agency on the maintenance and development of the TOPS MINIS System

  Chrissie Strickland

  A consultant to look after a database of "LCP" information

  42
  Mr. Cope
  The Training Agency spent a total of £1·1 million during the calendar year 1988 on mangement and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases. No management consultancy contracts were awarded during 1988. The list of computer consultancy contracts awarded during 1988 is as follows:
  43

  Consultants

  Subject of Assignment

  R. H. Wilmott

  A study into the Training Agency's X.400 profile and messaging requirements taking into account "COSIP" message handling system

  M. Wilson

  A consultant to carry out changes to the "Supercalc" system for the staff deployment survey

  Xentec

  Contract programmers for spectrum development work

  Yale Data

  Systems analyst to assist FSR with their development work Consultant to support in-house technical assurance coordinator

  Arthur Young

  A study into the information needs of senior management

  Training Premiums
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to increase the level of ET premiums in 1989 or 1990.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to increase the training premium part of trainees' allowances. However trainee allowances on employment training (ET) will increase from April 1989 when benefits are uprated.

  Training (Health and Safety)
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he will take following the judgement in the Cain case, to ensure that the establishment of training and enterprise councils will not diminish his final responsibility for the health and safety of both YTS and ET trainees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The contract between the Training Agency and training and enterprise councils (TECs) will require each TEC to meet the Government's requirements for the health, safety and welfare of trainees. The TECs will also be required to include conditions and acceptable standards relating to the health, safety and welfare of trainees in their contracts with providers of training. The Department has worked to ensure a high level of health and safety on all its programmes. The TECs will be required through their contract to continue this commitment.

  Redundancy Payments
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much money has been reimbursed to(a) community programme agents and sponsors; (b) new job training scheme providers; and (c) ET training managers and agents, for redundancy payments during the period from 1 September 1988, up to the most recently available date.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The amounts reimbursed for redundancy payments from 1 September 1988 up to and including February 1989, are as follows:

  (a) —£ 1,683,495;

  (b) —Nil; and

  (c) —£37,250

  Political Vetting
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Brent, East of 1 February,Official Report, column 261, what representations he has received concerning amendments to the terms of the Employment Protection Act 1975 in relation to the political vetting of employees.
  44
  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon Friend has received five such representations in the last 12 months.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of deaths and reportable injuries incurred by young workers on YTS schemes for each year of the scheme since inception; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The YTS accident statistics cannot be broken down into employed and non-employed status. Studies of YTS accidents by independent researchers have, however, shown that YTS trainees are not more at risk than young people of equivalent age in employment outside the programme.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people aged 16 and 17 years have been unable to obtain, or to take advantage of, an offer of a youth training scheme; and how many of these have been left without benefits.

  Mr. Cope
  The guarantee of an offer of a YTS place to all 16 and 17-year-olds not in full-time education or employment means that there is now no need for young people to be unemployed. I am satisfied that the Training Agency has more than sufficient YTS places available in all parts of the country for those who apply for one.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish forecasts of(a) the numbers unemployed and (b) unemployment rates for 1989–90 to 1991–92 for Scotland, Wales and by region in England.

  Mr. Lee
  The information is not available. The Department does not forecast future levels or rates of unemployment.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish forecasts of the numbers in employment for 1989–90 to 1991–92 for Scotland, Wales and by region in England.

  Mr. Lee
  The information is not available. The Department does not produce forecasts of employment, either in total or by region.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Food Colours
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department will provide an estimate of how many food colours at present in use in Britain are not listed in United Kingdom regulations.

  Mr. Ryder
  No food sold may contain any colouring matter other than a colouring matter permitted by the Colouring Matter in Food Regulations 1973, as amended. Enforcement of the regulations is a matter for local authorities. I am not aware of any reports of non-permitted colouring matter being used in food.

  Set-aside
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total estimated cost of set-aside.

  Mr. Ryder
  Payments on land in the United Kingdom set aside in the current crop year will total about £ 11 million. The cost in future years will depend on the extent of further uptake of the scheme.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to increase the amount of set-aside for United Kingdom farmers.

  Mr. Ryder
  I shall be inviting further applications under the scheme later this spring. I have no plans to increase the levels of payment.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to introduce any legislation in the next parliamentary session which will provide statutory protection for hedgerows in England and Wales.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish,Official Report 16 February, column 370, whether he has seen the research paper entitled, "Hedgerows: Still a cause for concern," published in the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds conservation review, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement on the conclusions contained in that paper.

  Mr. Ryder
  I was pleased to receive the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds conservation review of 1988, and read with interest the article on hedgerows.

  The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds surveys in north Hertfordshire and west Oxfordshire add to the number of recent surveys on hedgerow loss which have produced varying estimates. I am sure the hon. Member is aware that work is being carried out on improving survey methodologies and that my Department is contributing to this work. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds figures on hedgerow loss are of course related only to a small area, unrepresentative of the country as a whole.

  Nevertheless we are concerned that hedgerows should be maintained in good order if they are to retain their value
  46
  as wildlife habitat, as a landscape feature and as a stock-proof barrier. While this must be a matter for the individual farmers concerned, my Department encourages the maintenance of hedgerows in good condition. Through my agricultural development and advisory service advice is offered to farmers on hedgerow trimming and maintenance and on the time of year when cutting and trimming is best carried out for the benefit of wildlife.

  Slaughtering
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many of the recommendations of the Farm Animal Welfare Council relating to the slaughter of animals have been accepted by him.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Farm Animal Welfare council has published four reports relating to the slaughter of animals. These contained a total of 185 recommendations on slaughter of which 167 have been accepted, in whole or in part, for implementation by means of legislation, codes of practice, guidance to local authorities or research, as appropriate.

  All but one of 45 recommendations in the report on the welfare of poultry at the time of slaughter (1982) were accepted. The report on the welfare of livestock (red meat animals) at the time of slaughter (1984) contained 117 recommendations of which only 13 were rejected in full. Fifteen of 17 recommendations in the report on the religious slaughter of livestock (1985) and four of six recommendations on slaughter in the report on the welfare of farmed deer (1985) have also been accepted.

  Small Companies (Payments)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what advice has been given to him by the Intervention Board of the EEC on the payment on account of payments that may be due.

  (2) whether, in the case of non-annex II products, he intends to accelerate payments to British producers under the terms of regulation 3665/87;

  (3) whether he is satisfied that in the case of complex claims by small companies for payments under Commission regulation 3665/87 no delays are currently taking place;

  (4) what representations he has received from smaller companies on delays in payments due under the terms of Commission regulation 3665/87.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Intervention Board is now in general paying claims for export refunds within 60 days of receipt of appropriate documentation. Exceptionally, more complex claims for non-annex II goods and claims for victualling supplies continue to be delayed. The payment position will be restored for the former in coming weeks and for the latter by the autumn. Payment on account would contravene the provision of EC regulations which require that the conformity of claims with the regulations should be verified prior to payment. This view has been confirmed by European Commission services. The board continues however to make compensation payments on all claims whose payment since 1 January 1988 has been unreasonably delayed under the compensation scheme announced to the House last July.

  Exporters may apply under article 22 of Commission regulation (EEC) No. 3665/87 for advance payment once an export declaration has been accepted, and providing

  47
  that a security is lodged. In practice, the arrangement allows the provisional payment of premium rates of export refund in the same timescale as payments of standard rates. However, the Intervention Board is still required to check conformity with the relevant Community legislation before making the payment. The relative benefit of these different payment procedures is for commercial evaluation.

  Lambs
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what is his Department's response to the practice of using staging posts to facilitate the transport of live exported lambs across Europe.

  (2) if he has any plans to limit the length of time permitted for lambs to spend in transit immediately prior to slaughter;

  (3) what representations he has received calling for the maximum travelling time for lambs prior to slaughter to be limited to 12 hours.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Over the years my Department has received a number of representations calling for maximum travelling times for live food animals to be limited to 12 hours. However EC legislation requires that animals in international transport, should be offered food and water at suitable intervals and should not be left more than 24 hours without being fed and watered. Staging posts exist to fulfil this requirement, and my Department seeks to ensure that they are used on long journeys. The Commission is expected to propose a new regulation on welfare in transit shortly, and meanwhile I have no plans to introduce new measures.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what steps he is taking to encourage the slaughter of lambs prior to export to the countries of the southern European Economic Community;

  (2) what is his Department's response to the increasing practice of transporting live lambs considerable distances across Europe prior to slaughter;

  (3) if he will raise at the next Council of Ministers the increasing practice of transporting live lambs across Europe prior to slaughter;

  (4) whether his Department plans to take steps to encourage the slaughter of lambs for export as close to the farm of origin as possible.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Sheep and lambs have been exported to other member states of the Community for slaughter for many years. Provided that United Kingdom and EC welfare legislation is complied with, I see no need to interfere with this trade.

  Research Funding
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those food and agricultural research programmes and institutes from which funding has been withdrawn during 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Ryder
  Overall funding of agricultural, fisheries and food research and development by the Agriculture departments was reduced by £10 million in 1987–88, as part of the Government's policy to encourage industry to 48
  make a greater contribution towards the costs of R and D from which it benefits. Public support remained unchanged in 1988–89, and will be reduced by a further £5 million in 1989–90 under the Government's plans progressively to withdraw funding from near market research. A list of projects indicative of the work considered to be near market in the agriculture and food sectors was deposited in the Library of the House in November 1988. Funding of individual projects within the research programme is under continuous review, and in the natural course of events funding is withdrawn from particular projects as they reach a conclusion. The allocation of available funds for commissioned work to particular institutes is a matter for the Agriculture and Food Research council.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many scientists are currently employed by his Department reviewing pesticides currently in use which were in use prior to the Food and Environmental Protection Act 1986.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 23 March to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) at column 726.

  Deer
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department is currently sponsoring into the incidence of tuberculosis in deer; and whether he has any programme for the development of vaccine or live-testing techniques; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  A survey is being carried out in selected areas of south-west England on culled wild deer to estimate the prevalence of tuberculosis in free living deer. In addition all wildlife material, including that from deer, that comes to the Ministry's notice, is examined for tuberculosis should there be any cause to suspect its presence. All reports of tuberculosis in farmed deer are investigated. More complete information on the prevalence of the disease will become available when it is made notifiable.

  There is no programme for the development of a vaccine for deer as vaccination would adversely affect the interpretation of tuberculin tests. Work is being carried out at the central veterinary laboratory on the development of a blood test for tuberculosis in deer.

  BST Product Licences
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which scientific or other committees in the United Kingdom or the European Economic Community will be responsible for assessing any application for a BST product licence.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  In the United Kingdom such product licence applications are examined by the veterinary products committee established under section 4 of the Medicines Act. At Community level they are referred to the Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products for an opinion, in accordance with directive 87/22/EEC on high technology medicinal products, before national licensing authorities reach any decision.

  Strychnine
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his Department's guidance in the use of strychnine compounds includes reference to the use of such poisons for the control of wild rabbits.

  Mr. Ryder
  My Ministry's guidance makes it clear that strychnine may be used only for the control of moles. We take a very serious view of any abuse of strychnine to poison other creatures.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what criteria have to be met by individuals wishing to obtain permission for the purchase of strychnine compounds for pest control purposes.

  Mr. Ryder
  Authorities to purchase strychnine are issued under the poisons rules only if the applicant demonstrates a need for strychnine for the destruction of moles, is a competent and suitable person, and does not occupy land on which moles are dealt with by a rabbit clearance society. The authority is limited to the amount of strychnine needed to deal with the infestation.

  Company

  Subject

  Management consultancy contracts awarded by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in 1988

  Deloitte, Haskins and Sells

  Survey on fees to local veterinary inspectors

  Deloitte, Haskins and Sells

  Relocation of work study

  Agro—Economic Services Ltd.

  Study of impact of single market on agricultural research and development priorities

  Computer consultancy contracts awarded by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in 1988

  Kerridge Computer Company Ltd.

  Transfer of work to new computer

  Wootton Jeffreys plc

  Transfer of project control system

  Learmouth and Burchett Management Systems

  Farm survey system full study

  Touche Ross Management Consultants

  Deloitte, Haskins and Sells

  Asterisk Computer Systems Ltd.

  Support to regional administrauve data flow pilot project

  Quanta Learning Systems

  Pergammon Infotech

  Godfrey Durham

  Logica UK Ltd.

  Support to national food survey project

  Asterisk Computer Systems

  System development for Harpenden laboratory

  Asterisk Computer Systems

  System development for legal branch

  Spicer and Oppenheim

  Financial system study for National Institute of Agricultural Botany, Cambridge

  Oracle UK

  Transfer of work to new computer

  Keith London Associates

  PA Consulting Services Ltd.

  Agricultural Development and Advisory Service IT sub-strategy study

  Fisheries sub-strategy study

  Deloitte, Haskins and Sells

  Cost awareness information system development

  Deloitte, Haskins and Sells

  Technical consultancies

  Nolan Norton and Co.

  Software AG of UK

  Deloitte, Haskins and Sells

  IT strategy review

  50
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether strychnine alkaloid has any approved agricultural uses.

  Mr. Ryder
  Strychnine alkaloid is not approved for agricultural use under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986.

  Computer Consultants
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total amount spent by his Department in 1988 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by his Department in 1988, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The total amount spent by my Department in 1988 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases, was £522,735. Contracts awarded in 1988 are as follows:

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what controls exist to ensure that live cattle imported into the United Kingdom are free from bovine tuberculosis.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Under European Community rules cattle intended for breeding or production imported from other member states must originate from officially tuberculosis-free herds and they must be tested for bovine tuberculosis with negative results in the 30 days before export. Additionally, such cattle imported from the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland must be tested again, with negative results, 60 days after import. Cattle intended for slaughter imported from other member states must either originate from officially tuberculosis-free herds or be tested for bovine tuberculosis with negative results in the 30 days before export.

  Head of cattle

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Breeding cattle

  489

  614

  342

  229

  413

  413

  2,306

  Fats and stores

  133,607

  187,227

  213,253

  217,705

  231,087

  150,573

  174,887

  Calves

  2,394

  2,207

  1,627

  2,625

  429

  109

  510

  Total

  136,490

  190,048

  215,222

  220,559

  231,929

  151,095

  177,703

  Porcine Somatotropin
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has concerning trials of porcine somatotropin.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  No field trials of porcine somatotropin are currently authorised in the United Kingdom.

  Eggs
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is proposing to take to ensure that imported eggs meet the production standards he has set for British eggs.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Egg imports normally come from other EC member states and for both home produced and imported eggs the EC quality requirements are enforced by the agricultural departments and trading standards officers. Using their powers under the Imported Food Regulations 1984 some port health authorities have tested imported eggs for salmonella recently. A more systematic monitoring of imported eggs for salmonella is being set up in consultation with the port health authorities and the public health laboratory service.

  Salmonella should be tackled on an EC-wide basis. Preliminary discussions have already taken place in Brussels on a Commission proposal to deal with a range of zoonoses including salmonella.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list in the Official Report the number of egg packers receiving money under the egg industry scheme of (a) over £200,000, (b) £100 to £200,000, (c) £75 to £100,000 and (d) £50 to £75,000 and less than £50,000.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 23 March 1989]: I am unable to give these details in the form
  52
  Cattle imported from third countries are required to originate from premises which have been free from bovine tuberculosis for the previous 12 months and to be tested for bovine tuberculosis with negative results during a period of at least 30 days isolation on their premises of origin. Cattle from Canada are subject to an additional test during pre-export quarantine.

  Live Cattle Imports
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the numbers of live cattle imported from Ireland for each of the last seven years.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The numbers of cattle imported into the United Kingdom from the Republic of Ireland were as follows:

  requested as this would lead to the disclosure of information that could be attributed to particular packers. But six egg packers in the United Kingdom received total payments of £50,000 or more; and 657 egg packers received smaller sums.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has made any assessment of the likely hazard to human health from the consumption of animal production derived from cattle incubating bovine spongiform encephalopathy prior to the onset of clinical signs of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Southwood report concludes that it is most unlikely that bovine spongiform encephalopathy will have any implications for human health.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether he has any estimate of the likely future incidence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy;

  (2) what evidence he has of the likely incidence of cattle incubation of bovine spongiform encephalopathy but not showing clinical signs.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) on 13 March at column 78.

  Quarantine
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to announce revised regulations for animal quarantine premises; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Quarantine premises must meet prescribed standards and be aproved by my Department as
  53
  providing appropriate safeguards against the introduction of animal diseases. My Department will shortly be writing to the operators of quarantine kennels about revised conditions for their operation.

  Potatoes
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has as to the average price of potatoes per kilo to the domestic consumer in each European Community country in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Ryder
  I regret that the information requested is not readily available.

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many prosecutions for breaches of the Slaughterhouse Act 1974 there have been in(a) 1987 and (b)

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Enforcement of the Slaughterhouses Act 1974 is the responsibility of local authorities. Information on the number of prosecutions is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is proposing to improve the inspection of slaughterhouses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Local authorities are responsible for enforcing the legislation and members of the state veterinary service visit abattoirs to monitor standards and give advice.

  The Government propose to make it a statutory requirement for local authorities to designate an official to be formally responsible for the supervision and enforcement of welfare requirements in slaughterhouses.

  Slaughterhouse Workers
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will consider outlawing the piece rate method of paying slaughterhouse workers.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  No. It is the responsibility of all involved to ensure that welfare and hygiene requirements are observed irrespective of the methods of payment to workers in abattoirs.

  Livestock (Slaughter)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research is being carried out into the advantages of high voltage stun and kill systems as recommended by the Farm Animal Welfare Council's 1984 report on the welfare of livestock at the time of slaughter.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The research which the Farm Animal Welfare Council recommended was commissioned by my Department. This has shown that the high current required to induce cardiac arrest in sheep and pigs will always instantaneously render the animals insensible to pain. Work into other aspects of high voltage stunning is continuing.
  54
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to introduce the legislation and codes referred to in the Government response to the Farm Animal Welfare Council's 1984 report on the welfare of livestock animals at the time of slaughter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I expect to issue proposals For new regulations on the welfare of all animals at slaughter shortly. The codes of practice will be issued under new enabling powers which is it is proposed to take in primary legislation as soon as parliamentary time permits.

  Sole
  Mr. Anthony Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total volume of imported sole from Holland landed in the United Kingdom in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The total tonnage of fresh, chilled and frozen sole imported from the Netherlands into the United Kingdom was as follows:

  Year

  Tonnes

  1986

  667

  1987

  589

  1988

  1613

  1 Provisional.

  Source: Customs and Excise Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Imports are unrestricted, and levels reflect market supply and demand.

  Eggs
  Mr. Crowther
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, pursuant to his answer of 16 January,Official Report, column 51, he will ensure that all eggs are marked so as to show whether they are produced in a battery, free range or otherwise.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  EC regulations on marketing standards for eggs do not permit the method of production to be stamped on the egg although, as I indicated in my previous answer, eggs produced under alternative systems to the battery may be marketed in packs bearing the appropriate designation of the production system.

  Consumer interests have indicated that they would not welcome a change in the legislation to require the marking of eggs.

  Bovine Tuberculosis (Badgers)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what has been the annual cost of the bovine tuberculosis eradication scheme for each of the last seven years;

  (2) when he intends to review the progress of the bovine tuberculosis eradication scheme; what is his assessment of the success of the scheme to date; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what research his Department is currently funding into the development of a vaccine against bovine tuberculosis in badgers;

  (4) when he proposes to authorise field trials for vaccine against bovine tuberculosis in badgers;
  55
  (5) how many badgers were removed in 1988, by parish; and how many were subsequently proved to be tuberculoid in those cases where prior approval of the consultative panel was required;

  (6) if he will publish a table showing for each parish in 1988 the number of badgers taken by his Department under his badger control strategy and the number subsequently shown by post-mortem examination to be tuberculoid;

  (7) what proportion of those badgers killed in the bovine tuberculosis eradication scheme have subsequently been proven to be infected with tuberculosis;

  (8) how many badgers have been killed in the bovine tuberculosis eradication scheme over each of the last seven years;

  (9) what information he has on the proportion of badgers infected with tuberculosis that are infective to cattle and other badgers;

  (10) what progress his Department is making on the live testing of badgers for tuberculosis; and when he expects the results of field trials to be available;

  (11) what is the proportion of cattle slaughtered as suspected cases of bovine tuberculosis which are subsequently discovered not to be suffering from the

  Total Cost of the Scheme (£ million)

  Of which Compensation £

  Cattle

  Badgers

  1982

  n/a

  250,782

  614

  1,005

  1983

  n/a

  295,469

  677

  1,239

  1984

  6·3

  284,613

  746

  1,337

  1985

  7·6

  337,806

  863

  1,115

  1986

  7·1

  310,399

  645

  782

  1987

  6·7

  525,447

  1,173

  711

  1988

  6·5

  368,158

  782

  774

  All animals in which disease is confirmed must be considered as potentially infective to other cattle and badgers. Of the cattle slaughtered in 1988, disease was confirmed by laboratory examination in 36 per cent. Disease was confirmed in 29 per cent. of the badgers taken in the same year. It cannot be assumed, in the case of either cattle or badgers, that the remainder were unaffected.

  Details, by parish, of the number of badgers killed in 1988 and the number in which tuberculosis was confirmed are given in the table.

  County and parish

  Number taken

  Number positive

  Type I

  Avon

  Balheaston

  4

  0

  Cold Ashton

  23

  1

  Hawkesbury

  25

  18

  Marshfield

  17

  8

  St. Catherine

  2

  1

  Yate

  36

  9

  Cornwall

  Feock

  8

  5

  Lanlivery

  17

  6

  Linkinhorne

  31

  3

  Mabe

  9

  2

  St. Cleer

  2

  0

  St. Ive

  1

  0

  St. Teath

  4

  2

  Sancreed

  1

  0

  South Hill

  1

  1

  56
  disease; and what is the number of cattle slaughtered as suspected cases of bovine tuberculosis in each of the last seven years;

  (12) what is the total disbursed in each of the last seven years as compensation to farmers whose cattle have been slaughtered as suspected cases of bovine tuberculosis;

  (13) whether he intends commissioning a formal review of the badger control element of his bovine tuberculosis eradication programme;

  (14) if he willlist the members of his badger panel and indicate for each member his qualification and expertise;

  (15) whether he has made any assessment of the effectiveness of the badger including element of his bovine tuberculosis eradication programme;

  (16) what evaluation he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the development and possible applications of live-testing techniques for bovine tuberculosis in badgers;

  (17) whether he is currently considering any alternatives to budger culling in his programme to eradicate bovine tuberculosis in badger areas.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The annual cost of the bovine tuberculosis eradication scheme (which relates to action taken in respect of tuberculosis in cattle, badgers and latterly deer), including compensation for cattle, and the number of cattle and badgers killed under it during the last seven years are set out in the table.

  County and parish

  Number taken

  Number positive

  Week St. Mary

  5

  0

  Devon

  Bradworthy

  10

  2

  Chagford

  35

  11

  Hartland

  4

  1

  Holne

  24

  6

  Holsworthy Hamlets

  17

  3

  Lustleigh

  13

  0

  Milton Damorel

  22

  0

  North Bovey

  31

  7

  Sutcombe

  1

  1

  Widecombe in the Moor

  9

  3

  Woolfordisworthy near Bideford

  11

  2

  Dorset

  Beaminster

  4

  1

  Burleston

  2

  1

  Dewlish

  4

  1

  Puddletown

  7

  2

  Stoke Abbott

  13

  2

  Gloucester

  Boxwell with Leighterton

  7

  3

  Brockworth

  6

  4

  Edgeworth

  56

  28

  Long Newnton

  28

  8

  Newent

  6

  0

  Owlpen

  7

  2

  Painswick

  2

  0

  Pauntley

  13

  5

  Prestbury

  37

  28

  57

  County and parish

  Number taken

  Number positive

  Shipton Moyne

  28

  5

  Stroud

  4

  0

  Tetbury Upton

  3

  2

  Uley

  24

  9

  Somerset

  Cheddar

  6

  0

  Rodney Stoke

  15

  1

  Westbury

  2

  0

  Wiltshire

  Luckington

  1

  0

  3

  0

  St. Paul Malmesbury Without

  1

  0

  Type II

  Cornwall

  Newquay

  7

  0

  Menheniot

  1

  0

  St. Martin

  13

  0

  Devon

  Hollacombe

  3

  0

  Thornbury

  5

  0

  Dartmoor Forest*

  8

  0

  Avon

  Swainswick*

  3

  1

  Name

  Mr. M. T. Thomasin-Foster

  Chairman (Vice-Chairman of the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group)

  Representing:

  Mr. R. J. Badcock

  National Farmers' Union

  Lady Bolitho

  County Landowners' Association

  Mr. C. P. Booty

  Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

  Mr. R. Ewbank

  Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

  Dr. D. Jefferies

  Nature Conservancy Council

  Professor H. E. M. Kay

  Royal Society for Nature Conservation

  Dr. D. W. MacDonald

  Fauna and Flora Preservation Society

  Dr. A. McDiarmid

  Expert on Diseases in Wildlife

  Mr. R. M. Meyer

  National Federation of Badger Groups

  Dr. E. Neal

  Eminent Authority on Badgers

  Mr. R. Neville

  TGWU Agricultural and Allied Workers National Trade Group

  Dr. J. L. Stanford

  Microbiologist, Middlesex Hospital

  Mr. J. Sterry

  British Veterinary Association

  Mr. E. R. Thomas

  Dairy Farmer, Carmarthen

  Mr. H. V. Thompson

  Mammal Society

  Possible alternative methods of badger control are being investigated. Research work to develop a reliable vaccine has been carried out at the Middlesex hospital. Further work will be necessary before field trials to determine the efficacy of such a vaccine can commence. Work is also under way on the development of a test in the live animal. If such a test can be developed it should enable control operations to be targeted more effectively.

  The badger panel is responsible for keeping under review the evidence relating to bovine tuberculosis in badgers. This is an ongoing process designed to supplement the formal reviews undertaken by Lord Zuckerman and Professor Dunnet. In his 1986 report, Professor Dunnet recommended that the badger strategy should be considered either three or five years after its adoption if there was evidence of a significant increase in herd breakdowns. It is intended to follow this recommendation in considering future policy.

  The scheme has resulted in a significant reduction in the incidence of disease in cattle. Many areas of the country
  58

  County and parish

  Number taken

  Number positive

  Dorset

  Milton Abbas

  45

  8

  Netherbury

  2

  0

  Gloucester

  Southrop

  1

  0

  Upton St. Leonards*

  10

  7

  Cheltenham Borough*

  5

  0

  Kingswood*

  5

  1

  Wiltshire

  Christian Malford

  1

  0

  Dyfed

  Castlebythe

  6

  0

  Little Newcastle

  15

  0

  Puncheston

  2

  0

  * Formed part of Type I operations where adjoining land was involved.

  Type I operations are those which are approved departmentally and take place within badger problem areas. These are defined as parishes in which there has been at least one cattle breakdown of apparent badger origin within the previous six years. Type II operations take place in areas outside badger problem areas and require the agreement of the badger panel.

  The current membership of the panel is as follows:

  are now virtually free from the disease, although it is proving more difficult in the south-west because of infection in the local badger population.

  Sheep Dip
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what grants are available for farmers to re-site their sheep-dipping facilities away from the edge of water courses.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 23 March 1989]: Under the farm and conservation grant scheme grant is not available for farm buildings and associated animal husbandry facilities, including those intended for use in the gathering and treatment of livestock. Thus, for example, sheep dips and associated gathering pens are not eligible for grant aid. Where a farmer has an existing plan approved under one of the earlier grant schemes, this may contain sheep

  59
  dipping facilities. In these circumstances grant is still payable. The present capital grant scheme continues to aid facilities for the safe disposal of spent sheepdip.

  Abattoirs (Statistics)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number and type of animals which were processed in the United Kingdom in

  (Million head)

  Adult Cattle and Calves

  Sheep

  Pigs

  Total

  EC Export Approved

  Non EC Export Approved

  EC Export Approved

  Non EC Export Approved

  EC Export Approved

  Non EC Export Approved

  EC Export Approved

  Non EC Export Approved

  1985

  2·4

  1·9

  6·7

  9·2

  5·4

  9·9

  14·5

  21·0

  1986

  2·1

  1·8

  6·6

  8·9

  5·7

  9·9

  14·4

  20·6

  19871

  2·2

  1·9

  7·1

  8·7

  5·9

  10·0

  15·2

  20·6

  1988

  1·8

  1·6

  8·2

  8·9

  6·2

  9·5

  16·2

  20·0

  Figures of the numbers of horses and goats slaughtered at abattoirs are not collected.

  1 53 weeks.

  Meat Statistics
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much meat was consumed in the United Kingdom from the non-European Community approved abattoirs in 1988.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 20 March 1989]: It is provisionally estimated that just over 1·2 million tonnes of carcase meat (cattle, sheep, pigs) was produced in non-EC export-approved abattoirs in the United Kingdom in 1988. Most of this will have been consumed or processed in the United Kingdom.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much meat from European Community approved abattoirs in the United Kingdom was(a) exported and (b) consumed in the United Kingdom in 1988.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 20 March 1989]: It is provisionally estimated that just over 1·1 million tonnes of carcase meat (cattle, pigs and sheep) was produced in EC export-approved abattoirs in the United Kingdom in 1988. Of this about 23 per cent. will have been exported and 3½ per cent. sold into intervention. The remainder will have been sold for consumption or processing in the United Kingdom.

PRIME MINISTER

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding the current level of employment.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding the current level of employment.

  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding the current level of employment.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of representations about the level of employment. The workforce in employment has been on a rising trend for more than five years and now stands at the highest level ever seen at 25,807,000.
  60
  (a) European Community approved abattoirs and

  (b) non-European Community approved abattoirs for each of the last eight years.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 20 March 1989]: Figures are available only for the last four years and are based on abattoirs with EC export approval as at the end of 1988. Latest estimates are:

  President Gorbachev
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding the visit of President Gorbachev.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding the visit of President Gorbachev.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding the visit of President Gorbachev.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received representations about a wide range of issues, in particular human rights in the Soviet Union. I shall of course be taking up this question with Mr. Gorbachev.

  NATO
  Mr. Neil Thorne
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding the United Kingdom relationship with its allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

  Mr. Iain Mills
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding the United Kingdom relationship with its allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding the United Kingdom relationship with its allies in NATO.

  The Prime Minister
  I have not received any recent representations, although I am regularly involved in a range of matters regarding the United Kingdom's relationship with the Allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Today, of course, marks the 40th anniversary of NATO's foundation. During that time, the Alliance has been uniquely successful in preserving peace in Europe and in providing the basis for the prosperity and stability that we all enjoy.

  Rain Forests
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the
  61
  arrangements known as debt-for-nature swap, in relation to helping Governments with substantial areas of rain forest at risk.

  The Prime Minister
  We welcome debt for nature swaps agreed voluntarily between commercial banks and debtors. Arrangements whereby conservation organisations can benefit from the secondary market discount on commercial bank debt can provide valuable additional resources for the environment. But their role is likely to remain limited.

  Kington Magna
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will pay an official visit to Kington Magna.

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

  Willoughby
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to make an official visit to Willoughby near Ruby.

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

  Select Committee Reports
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the average length of time it has taken each Government Department respectively, to reply to Select Committee reports; what is the shortest time taken to respond; and what is the longest, since May 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  On the basis of material readily available, the departmental estimates of information requested are as follows:

  Time in days

  Department

  Average

  Shortest

  Longest

  Agriculture

  94

  77

  120

  Defence

  98

  23

  323

  Education

  153

  15

  450

  Employment

  97

  5

  209

  Energy

  65

  11

  147

  Environment

  139

  12

  397

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office (including ODA)

  87

  11

  272

  Health and Social Security1

  148

  14

  365

  Home Office

  140

  26

  365

  Office of the Minister for the Civil Service

  82

  63

  105

  Scottish Office

  128

  33

  392

  Trade and Industry

  78

  14

  224

  Transport

  155

  31

  351

  Treasury

  69

  28

  232

  Welsh Office

  156

  36

  360

  1 Became two separate departments in July 1988.

  Homelessness
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she intends to take any initiatives to reduce the level of homelessness amongst young people under 21 years of age.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are currently reviewing the homelessness legislation. It is too early to comment on any specific initiatives which may follow.

  Economy (Press Notice)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will give fixed capital expenditure of the economy at current and 1985 prices for division 0 to 9, both in total and individually for each year 1986, 1987 and 1988 consistent with the figures published by the CSO in the 17 March 1989 press notice (89) 28, "Gross Domestic Product Fourth Quarter and Year 1988".

  The Prime Minister
  The latest estimates of fixed capital expenditure by the industries classified to divisions 0 to 9 are given in total in the table. An industrial analysis of these figures is not yet available. Some industrial detail will be published, as usual, in the regular "National Income and Expenditure" article in the CSO'sEconomic Trends for April 1989.

  Gross domestic fixed capital formation by all industries in divisions 0 to 9, (excluding dwellings and net purchases of land and existing buildings and associated transfer costs).

  £ million

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Current prices

  47,258

  53,834

  62,494

  Constant 1985 prices

  45,416

  49,600

  55,880

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will give a source, date and reference specifying to which set of earlier figures the upward adjustments given on page 7 of the CSO press notice of 17 March 1989 (89) 28 "Gross Domestic Product Fourth Quarter and Year 1988" refer.

  The Prime Minister
  The adjustments attach to the latest estimates of gross domestic fixed capital formation derived from CSO's quarterly data collection system, not to previously published estimates. They are designed to anticipate better the final figures when full information is available from annual inquiries.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Prime Minister when she anticipates the full information of a fixed investment and its sectoral and industrial composition mentioned on page 7 of the LSO press notice of 17 March 1989 will be available.

  The Prime Minister
  More detailed estimates than those currently available will be published in "UK National Accounts" 1989 edition in September. Estimates for 1988 will as usual still be provisional at that stage. Such additional information as is available before then will be incorporated in the figures in the regular quarterly articles on "national income and expenditure" in the CSO'sEconomic Trends, April and July 1989 issues.

  Computer Consultants
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total amount spent by the Cabinet Office in 1988 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if she will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by the Cabinet Office in 1988, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment.

  The Prime Minister
  The following is the information.
  63

  Firm

  Assignment

  Training Development Approaches Ltd.

  Design of a manual in support of the young people programme

  Industrial Training Service Ltd.

  Production of a guide on conducting training needs analyses

  Erwin Scheider

  Feasibility study for a computerised management information system

  WRM Ltd.

  Training information and communications study

  Arthur Young Management Consultants

  Evaluation of future information technology requirements

  PA Personnel Services

  Analysis of executive officer and fast stream recruitments

  Questel Qualitative Studies Ltd.1

  Audit of recruitment publicity

  Anne Hughes Hallett1

  Research into career attitudes

  University of London Institute of Education

  Analysis of recruitment competition data

  Human Assets Ltd.

  Study of information officers recruitment procedures

  Equalities Associates

  Guidelines for trainers on equal opportunities issues

  Fact Index Ltd.

  Enhancements to computer network system

  Ashbridge Management College

  Study of Women's National Commission

  Central Legal Systems Ltd.1; Yale Data Computer Consultants1

  User requirement and business case for statute law database

  1 Costs for these studies were shared with other Government Departments.

  Security
  Mr. Ken Livingstone
  To ask the Prime Minister, if she will make a statement on the progress in implementing each of the recommendations contained in the statement on the recommendations of the Security Commission; Cmnd. 8540, May 1982.

  The Prime Minister
  All the recommendations have been implemented.

  Mr. Colin Wallace
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Prime Minister, if she will publish in the Official Report the text of the letter from her to the hon. Member for Brent, East on 13 February about Mr. Colin Wallace and related matters.

  The Prime Minister
  No. It is not my usual practice to publish exchanges of this kind.

  Security Vetting (Indecency)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make it her policy that a conviction for indecency shall be grounds for refusing vetting clearance.

  The Prime Minister
  Each case is considered on its merits.

  Life Sentences
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the average length of a life sentence served in(a) England and (b)Northern Ireland.

  The Prime Minister
  The average time served under sentence in prison service establishments in England and Wales by those first released on licence from a life sentence in the three years 1985 to 1987 was about 104 years. A comparable figure for Northern Ireland is not readily available. The average time spent in custody, including on remand, by those first released from prison service establishments in Northern Ireland from a life sentence in the same three years was just over 11 years. These average figures do not take account of the longest periods being served by some of those given life sentences following abolition of capital punishment who have not yet been released.

  Engagements
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 April.
  64
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 April.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister, if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 April.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 April.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

TRANSPORT

  Cambridge-King's Lynn Line
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library the basis and calculations used to determine the discounted rate of return on the £20 million expenditure in the electrification of the Cambridge-King's Lynn railway line.

  Mr. Portillo
  The scheme was appraised in the normal way, as described in paragraphs 61 and 62 of the Department of Transport's memorandum to the Select Committee on Transport's examination of the financing of rail services. The board evaluated many options including bus substitution, a DMU shuttle service between Cambridge and King's Lynn, and full electrification. The additional cost of electrification was shown to earn a financial return, at a 7 per cent. discount rate, when compared with all other options, and the project was approved on that basis.

  Computer Consultants
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total amount spent by his Department in 1988 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by his Department in 1988, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The total amount spent by the Department in 1988 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases, was £1·89 million.

  Comprehensive records of all contracts with consultancy firms are not at present held centrally. It would be

  65
  disproportionately expensive to collect all the information

  Firm

  Subject of Assignment

  AIMS

  Structured systems analysis design and methodology

  B. T. Marketing Services

  Sale of vehicle registration marks

  CACI

  Data administrator

  CACI

  Land/property management

  CACI

  NIS Stage 1 + development

  CCTA

  H & T security review

  Computer Search & Selection

  Fishing vessels system developments

  Coopers & Lybrand

  Advice on the Department's IT strategy

  Coopers & Lybrand

  Executive Agency (DVL)

  D. E. Barnard Systems

  QA/technical review

  Dunsmore Data & Info

  NIS works data site application

  EASAMS

  NIS works data application

  EASAMS

  NIS database administration

  FORVUS

  Advice to statistics on access to DVLC data

  Halcrow Fox Association

  QUADRO development

  Howard Humphries

  Bridges database merge

  KPMG

  NIS design configuration

  KPMG

  RMMS support/testing

  Logsys

  RCPI database

  Logsys

  Highways inquiries system

  Logsys

  Severn bridge tolls database

  Mott Hay & Anderson

  HRM enhancement/maintenance

  Mott Hay & Anderson

  STRAND/GRIDS maintenance

  Mott Hay & Anderson

  ARCADY/PICADY maintanence

  MVA Systematica

  COBA10 development

  MVA Systematica

  CIDEL maintenance

  MVA Systematica

  OSCADY maintenance

  Peat Marwick McLintock

  Design of IFCOS accounting system

  Peat Marwick McLintock

  Vehicle inspectorate accounting system—project control

  Perth Crest

  Winter fleet stock control

  Price Waterhouse

  H & T IT strategy development

  RTI

  INGRES database review

  SCICON

  Enhancement to chemical and oil spill system

  S. G. Bisson

  Geotechnical database

  S. G. Bisson

  NaRIS enhancement

  S. G. Bisson

  Consultants' performance database

  SIA

  NISL CHART interface Stage II

  Software AG

  Drivers 90's harmonisation project

  Transport Planning Association

  ROADWAY maintenance

  Transport Planning Association

  ROADWAY enhancement

  W. S. Atkins

  SCRIM project definition

  Wootton Jeffreys

  URECA enhancement

  Wootton Jeffreys

  COBA/QUADRO maintenance

  Dangerous Loads
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce regulations to provide training for drivers of motor vehicles carrying dangerous, inflammable and explosive substances, and compulsory notices of the contents of motor vehicles listing the contents with criminal sanctions for failure to comply; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Dangerous Substances (Conveyance by Road in Road Tankers and Tank Containers) Regulations 1981 and the Road Traffic (Carriage of Dangerous Substances in Packages etc.) Regulations 1986 require drivers to be trained so that they understand both the nature of the dangers to which the substance(s) being carried may give rise and any emergency action which should be taken as well as their duties under the regulations.

  The new Carriage of Explosives by Road Regulations will contain a similar provision.

  The national (dangerous substances) driver training scheme, sponsored by industry, provides a network of
  66
  required. The following list identifies those management and computing consultancies which began in 1988 and are valued at 10,000 or more.

  training centres throughout the United Kingdom which offer courses for drivers on different types of dangerous loads. This system works well.

  The road tanker regulations require tank vehicles to display placards indicating by means of known code numbers the substances carried and the appropriate emergency response action. Vehicles carrying more than 500kg of packaged dangerous goods must display the blank orange plate to alert the emergency services, but listing such dangerous goods would not be practicable. As I told the House on 23 March, the new carriage of explosives regulations will require the display of the orange plate, as well as descriptive placards for the most dangerous explosives.

  Failure to comply with any United Kingdom legislation in this field is an offence. It is a matter for the courts to decide upon the level of appropriate fines, which can be unlimited upon indictment.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to prohibit the transportation of detonators, fuses and explosives together; and if he will make a statement.
  67
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The new regulations to be laid before the House, governing the carriage of explosives by road, are based on the internationally recognised UN system of classification of danger in transport. So are the other United Kingdom road regulations in this field.

  Under the UN system, explosives are assigned to compatibility groups by either the Health and Safety Executive or the Ministry of Defence. This allocation into groups depends upon, for example, the sensitivity of the explosive, whether or not it contains its own means of ignition and whether or not it has any independent safety feature.

  During drafting of the new regulations careful consideration was given to the question of ensuring safety when mixed loads are carried on the same vehicle. The requirement will be that where detonators, fuses and other explosives are carried together, effective measures must be taken to ensure that such carriage is as safe as if only one type of explosive were being carried.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new steps he is taking to ensure that in future local fire chiefs receive advance warning of explosive or dangerous loads travelling through an area by road or rail.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  It would not be practicable for fire or police services to be notified prior to every movement of a dangerous substance.

  The new Carriage of Explosives by Road Regulations, which should be laid before the House next week, will contain a requirement for the route to be followed to be agreed with the relevant chief officers of police when a large load of the most dangerous types of explosive is being carried.

  Cleaning (Stoke-on-Trent)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much extra money will be paid to highway authorities in Stoke-on-Trent, north; and which sites will be covered under his clean-up.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A £1 million litter clearing campaign on motorways and trunk roads was launched by the Department on 17 March. The A500 and A34/A50 trunk roads in Stoke-on-Trent, north will be cleaned during the next few weeks by Staffordshire county council, acting as our agent. Detailed costs are not available.

  Mrs. Edwina Crantham (Heavy Goods Licence)
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he intends to reissue a heavy goods vehicle licence to replace licence 14/N/A 008 618 for Mrs. Edwina Crantham;

  (2) if he will call for a report from the Metropolitan traffic commissioners as to when they intend to replace heavy goods vehicle licence No. 14/N/A 008 618, class 3 and 3A for Mrs. Edwina Crantham.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The licence was renewed for three years on 14 March 1989.

  Headcorn Aerodrome
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made in deciding whether to designate Headcorn aerodrome for consultative purposes.
  68
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is considering the designation of several new aerodromes including Headcorn for consultation purposes. He hopes to make an order shortly.

  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many motor vehicles involved in fatal accidents during 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988 were driven by disqualified drivers;

  (2) how many motor vehicles involved in fatal accidents during 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988 have been stolen or taken illegally without the owner's consent;

  (3) how many motor vehicles involved in fatal accidents during 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988 were driven by uninsured drivers.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information requested is not collected on the STATS19 road accident report form.

  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many motor vehicles involved in fatal accidents in 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988 were driven by drivers who were under legal age to drive on public roads or who were otherwise driving without legal authority.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  In fatal road accidents in 1985 there were 42 motor vehicles whose driver or rider was under the legal age to drive that vehicle; in 1986 there were 38 such vehicles and in 1987 there were 40. Figures for 1988 are not yet available.

  It is not possible to obtain figures for those drivers who were otherwise driving without legal authority.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Bottles and Papers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Leader of the House what plans he has to stage collection points for bottles and papers in the House.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Arrangements already exist in the Palace of Westminster for the collection of bottles and papers. The Property Services Agency has commissioned a study into the effective collection and disposal of all types of waste and have had discussions with the relevant departments of both Houses. Their recommendations will be considered in due course by the relevant sub-committee of the Services Committee.

  Recycled Paper
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Leader of the House what percentage of paper used in the House of Commons is recycled paper.

  Mr. Wakeham
  It is not possible to identify this percentage.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to use recycled paper in the House of Commons.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Her Majesty's Stationery Office already supplies the House with buff envelopes, ruled writing paper, file covers, note books, index books, lavatory paper and waste paper sacks, which all contain at least 50 per cent. recycled material. The Accommodation and
  69
  Administration Sub-Committee has instructed the House authorities and HMSO to keep it informed of any significant developments which will enable the use of recycled paper to be extended.

  Division Bells
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what information he has as to how many authorisations have been granted for the installation of Division bells in research assistants' private flats and homes.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) on 23 March at column 696.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Selective Investment Brokers Limited
  Sir Charles Morrison
  To ask the Attorney-General what advice regarding further inquiries into the affairs of Selective Investment Brokers Limited was recommended by the Wiltshire police to the Director of Public Prosecutions in their report; and what action was taken.

  The Attorney-General
  In May 1987 the Wiltshire constabulary submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions a report regarding their inquiries into the affairs of Selective Investment Brokers Limited. That report did not disclose sufficient evidence to justify the institution of criminal proceedings. Subsequently, further evidence became available which has resulted in Mr. Anthony Wheeler, the sole director of Selective Investment Brokers Limited, being charged with theft. Investigations into the matter are continuing.

  Computer Consultants
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the total amount spent by the Land Registry in 1988 on management and computer consultancy contracts excluding hardware and software purchases.

  The Attorney-General
  The total amount spent by the Land Registry in 1988 on management consultancy contracts was £1,372 and on computer consultancy contracts £13,080, excluding hardware and software purchases.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by the Land Registry in 1988, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment.

  The Attorney-General
  Management and computer consultancy contracts were awarded by the Land Registry in 1988 as follows:

  (i) Management Consultancy

  Roland Long Limited:

  A survey designed to improve staff and management communication at one district land registry.

  (ii) Computer Consultancy

  IBM (UK) Limited:

  A system evaluation to investigate and improve the use of the central processing unit of the department's main computer.

  70

  Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency:

  A Departmental Support Agreement to provide continuing technical advice, support and an information technology procurement service.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the total amount spent by his Department in 1988 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases.

  The Attorney-General
  Nil.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by his Department in 1988, giving in each case he name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment.

  The Attorney-General
  No management or computer consultancy contract was awarded by the Law Officers' Department in 1988.

  Mr. Martin Foran
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he will paaaacute for assaulting Martin Foran the four prison officers from Walton prison against whom £750 damages were awarded in favour of Mr. Foran at Newport county court.

  The Attorney-General
  No. Such proceedings would not be in conformity with the code for Crown paaaacutors. I add, in the interests of accuracy, that in the civil proceedings to which the hon. Member refers the action was stayed upon terms that £750 be paid to the plaintiff, with costs. No admission of liability was made.

  Middlesex Guildhall Collection
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Attorney-General what items from the Middlesex Guildhall collection will be on display in time for the official opening of the refurbished court house on 5 April; and what financial contribution has been made to the London residuary body in respect of the display of such items.

  The Attorney-General
  The items from the Middlesex Guildhall collection which will be on display for the official opening of the refurbished court house on 5 April are:

  Gilt framed oil painting of Sir Montague Sharpe by G. Spencer Watson.

  Gilt framed oil painting of Sir Filfred Craig by Harold Knight.

  Gilt framed oil painting of Sir Ralph Littler by Beatrice Offor.

  Gilt framed oil painting of Thomas Forster by T. C. Dugdale.

  Gilt framed oil painting of the Duke of Bedford by John Collier.

  Gilt framed oil painting of Francis Const by unknown artist.

  Gilt framed oil painting of Sir Baptist Hikes attributed to Paul Van Somer.

  Three framed documents commemorating the first authorisation by the British Parliament of the Establishment of Maritime Courts by the Allied and Associated Foreign Powers in the United Kingdom during the Second World War.

  The Lord Chancellor's Department has agreed to meet the costs of removing these items from the county hall to Middlesex Guildhall, the hanging of the items in the Middlesex Guildhall and the cost of insuring the items against loss or damage by fire and theft.

HEALTH

  Occupational Therapists
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many additional occupational therapists are required by the south east Thames regional health authority; and what steps are being taken to diminish the shortage.

  Mr. Freeman
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give a breakdown of figures within the Trent regional health authority for the latest year that he has figures for food poisoning according to numbers and types of cases associated with(a) fish, (b) meat,(c) vegetables, (d) eggs and (e) other foods; and if he will give figures for each district health authority.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The information is not available centrally in precisely the form requested.

  The table gives the total number of notifications of food poisoning for Trent regional health authority by county for 1987, the latest year for which figures are available. No information is available centrally on the cause of infection.

  Number

  Lincolnshire

  227

  Leicestershire

  327

  Nottinghamshire

  621

  Derbyshire

  400

  South Yorkshire

  674

  Total Trent RHA

  2,249

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many registrations have been cancelled under the provisions of section 30 of the Residential Homes Act 1984 in each year since its implementation.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many registrations by region have been(a) made and (b) cancelled under the provision of section 30 of the Residential Homes Act 1984 in each year since its implementation.

  Mr. Mellor
  The number of cancelled registrations notified to the Department in respect of each region under the provisions of section 30 of the Registered Homes Act 1984 since it came into operation on 1 January 1985 is as follows.

  Type of home

  Number of residents as at 31 March 1987 (provisional)

  Costs to LAs for year

  Under 65 Years

  65 years and over

  1986–87

  supported by local authority

  Total

  supported by local authority

  Total

  Gross1 £ million

  Net2 £ million

  Local authority

  4,234

  4,234

  100,594

  100,594

  697·9

  415·7

  Private

  93

  33,214

  558

  484,852

  529·1

  521·3

  Voluntary

  2,373

  34,848

  3,277

  425,068

  1 Excludes expenditure on administration, training and field work.

  2 Of charges paid by residents.

  3 Includes residents whose age is not known in homes for younger physically handicapped people.

  72

  Region

  Year

  Number

  Trent regional health authority

  1985

  1

  South East Thames regional health authority

  1986

  1

  Wessex regional health authority

  South East Thames regional health authority

  1987

  2

  Northern regional health authority

  Yorkshire regional health authority

  South West Thames regional health authority

  1988

  3

  Registration is a function of district health authorities and local authorities. The number of new reigstrations is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many persons have had applications for registration rejected under the Residential Homes Act 1984 in each year since its implementation;

  (2) how many unregistered residential homes have been discovered by registering authorities under the Residential Homes Act 1984 in each year since its implementation;

  (3) how many persons, on a full-time equivalent basis, are employed in inspection of residential homes under the Residential Homes Act 1984 in each of the registration authorities.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many persons aged 65 yearsand over were in(a) local authority, (b) voluntary and (c) private residential homes in the latest year for which statistics are available;

  (2) what was the total cost of maintaining persons aged 65 years and over in residential homes run by local authorities in the lates year for which statistics are available; and what was the average cost per person;

  (3) what was the total cost to local authorities of maintaining persons aged 65 years and over in private residential homes in the latest year for which statistics are available; and what was the average cost per person.

  Mr. Mellor
  Information on the number of persons aged 65 years and over in homes for the elderly and younger physically handicapped is published in "Residential Accommodation for Elderly and Younger Physically Handicapped People: All Residents in Local Authority, Voluntary and Private Homes Year Ending 31 March 1986" a copy of which is available in the Library. Provisional information as at 31 March 1987 is given in the table, which also shows the available information about local authorities' gross and net expenditure on residential care homes for elderly and younger physically handicapped people for the financial year 1986–87.
  73
  4 Includes residents whose age is not known in homes for elderly people.

  5 Includes costs for both residents fully supported by the local authority and those receiving partial support.

  The average annual costs per resident for local authority homes were £6,658 gross and £3,966 net. It is not possible to give average costs for private and voluntary homes as the cost of residents fully supported by local authorities and the cost of partial support cannot be disaggregated.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many persons have had registrations cancelled under the Residential Homes Act 1984 in each year since its implementation.

  Mr. Mellor
  The number of persons notified to the Department whose registrations have been cancelled, under the Registered Homes Act 1984, since it came into operation on 1 January 1985 is as follows:

  Residential Care Homes

  Nursing Homes

  Dually Registered

  1985

  2

  3

  1986

  16

  5

  1987

  28

  4

  1988

  54

  15

  2

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much financial provision has been made by each of the registering authorities for the inspection of residential homes under the terms of the Residential Homes Act 1984.

  Mr. Mellor
  The latest available figures are shown in the table.

  Expenditure on the registration and inspection of residental homes under Regislered Homes Act 1984 in 1987–88

  (£ thousand cash)

  Administration Costs

  Avon

  92

  Bedfordshire

  n/a

  Berkshire

  n/a

  Buckinghamshire

  n/a

  Cambridgeshire

  174

  Cheshire

  n/a

  Cleveland

  28

  Cornwall

  164

  Cumbria

  3

  Derbyshire

  72

  Devon

  260

  Dorset

  97

  Durham

  13

  East Sussex

  176

  Essex

  182

  Gloucestershire

  33

  Hampshire

  157

  Hereford and Worcester

  84

  Hertfordshire

  77

  Humberside

  n/a

  Isle of Wight

  60

  Kent

  61

  Lancashire

  280

  Leicestershire

  52

  Lincolnshire

  64

  Norfolk

  75

  Northamptonshire

  58

  Northumberland

  n/a

  North Yorkshire

  94

  Nottinghamshire

  58

  Oxfordshire

  20

  Shropshire

  34

  Somerset

  n/a

  Staffordshire

  57

  Suffolk

  42

  Surrey

  83

  Warwickshire

  62

  West Sussex

  95

  Wiltshire

  25

  Isles of Scilly

  n/a

  74

  Administration Costs

  Bolton

  27

  Bury

  9

  Manchester

  n/a

  Oldham

  21

  Rochdale

  n/a

  Salford

  n/a

  Stockport

  20

  Tameside

  n/a

  Trafford

  39

  Wigan

  23

  Knowsley

  n/a

  Liverpool

  31

  St. Helens

  n/a

  Sefton

  79

  Wirral

  59

  Barnsley

  8

  Doncaster

  29

  Rotherham

  n/a

  Sheffield

  n/a

  Gateshead

  17

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  21

  North Tyneside

  n/a

  South Tyneside

  14

  Sunderland

  9

  Birmingham

  78

  Coventry

  1

  Dudley

  n/a

  Sandwell

  12

  Solihull

  n/a

  Walsall

  27

  Wolverhampton

  n/a

  Bradford

  62

  Calderdale

  20

  Kirklees

  16

  Leeds

  n/a

  Wakefield

  21

  City of London

  n/a

  Camden

  9

  Greenwich

  n/a

  Hackney

  n/a

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  n/a

  Islington

  8

  Kensington and Chelsea

  20

  Lambeth

  n/a

  Lewisham

  33

  Southwark

  n/a

  Tower Hamlets

  n/a

  Wandsworth

  8

  Westminster

  n/a

  Barking and Dagenham

  n/a

  Barnet

  48

  Bexley

  2

  Brent

  6

  Bromley

  40

  Croydon

  38

  Ealing

  n/a

  Enfield

  38

  Haringey

  n/a

  Harrow

  n/a

  Havering

  20

  Hillingdon

  33

  Hounslow

  n/a

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  n/a

  Merton

  13

  Newham

  n/a

  Redbridge

  15

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  9

  75

  Administration Costs

  Sutton

  21

  Waltham Forest

  17

  n/a = not available.

  Number of residential care homes registered with local authorities as at 31 March 1987 (provisional)

  Registering local authority

  Homes for elderly and younger physically handicapped people

  Homes for other client groups

  Total homes

  Cleveland

  31

  2

  33

  Cumbria

  75

  5

  80

  Durham

  37

  1

  38

  Northumberland

  40

  3

  43

  Gateshead

  9

  3

  12

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  27

  3

  30

  North Tyneside

  37

  9

  46

  South Tyneside

  11

  2

  13

  Sunderland

  23

  0

  23

  Humberside

  166

  21

  187

  North Yorkshire

  234

  30

  264

  Barnsley

  11

  1

  12

  Doncaster

  22

  1

  23

  Rotherham

  6

  7

  13

  Sheffield

  22

  9

  31

  Bradford

  91

  3

  94

  Calderdale

  28

  1

  29

  Kirklees

  36

  3

  39

  Leeds

  55

  9

  64

  Wakefield

  21

  7

  28

  Cheshire

  76

  13

  89

  Lancashire

  483

  26

  509

  Bolton

  28

  0

  28

  Bury

  14

  1

  15

  Manchester

  56

  8

  64

  Oldham

  28

  2

  30

  Rochdale

  15

  0

  15

  Salford

  15

  3

  18

  Stockport

  42

  1

  43

  Tameside

  21

  1

  22

  Trafford

  48

  8

  56

  Wigan

  13

  2

  15

  Knowsley

  4

  0

  4

  Liverpool

  45

  12

  57

  Sefton

  133

  9

  142

  St. Helens

  6

  0

  6

  Wirral

  65

  20

  85

  Hereford and Worcester

  149

  34

  183

  Shropshire

  82

  7

  89

  Staffordshire

  118

  5

  123

  Warwickshire

  74

  30

  104

  Birmingham

  130

  34

  164

  Coventry

  49

  15

  64

  Dudley

  40

  12

  52

  Sandwell

  10

  3

  13

  Solihull

  11

  5

  16

  Walsall

  19

  3

  22

  Wolverhampton

  29

  3

  32

  Derbyshire

  130

  5

  135

  Leicestershire

  96

  26

  122

  Lincolnshire

  114

  12

  126

  Northamptonshire

  88

  15

  103

  Nottinghamshire

  89

  61

  150

  Bedfordshire

  54

  7

  61

  Berkshire

  90

  23

  113

  Buckinghamshire

  47

  17

  64

  Cambridgeshire

  63

  11

  74

  Essex

  228

  24

  252

  Hertfordshire

  96

  6

  102

  Norfolk

  184

  56

  240

  Oxfordshire

  36

  5

  41

  Suffolk

  103

  19

  122

  Camden

  11

  3

  14

  Greenwich

  4

  2

  6

  Hackney

  3

  5

  8

  76
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residential homes are currently registered under the Residential Homes Act 1984 in each of the registering authorities.

  Mr. Mellor
  The latest available figures for the number of residential care homes registered with each local authority are given in the table.
  77

  Registering local authority

  Homes for elderly and younger physically handicapped people

  Homes for other client groups

  Total homes

  Hammersmith

  2

  0

  2

  Islington

  2

  4

  6

  Kensington

  10

  8

  18

  Lambeth

  18

  11

  29

  Lewisham

  19

  3

  22

  Southwark

  9

  2

  11

  Tower Hamlets

  3

  1

  4

  Wandsworth

  15

  10

  25

  Westminster

  2

  9

  11

  Barking

  2

  0

  2

  Barnet

  57

  4

  61

  Bexley

  5

  0

  5

  Brent

  13

  3

  16

  Bromley

  43

  11

  54

  Croydon

  60

  10

  70

  Ealing

  33

  5

  38

  Enfield

  31

  5

  36

  Haringey

  18

  14

  32

  Harrow

  30

  2

  32

  Havering

  18

  1

  19

  Hillingdon

  8

  0

  8

  Hounslow

  3

  3

  6

  Kingston upon Thames

  26

  3

  29

  Merton

  21

  2

  23

  Newham

  6

  0

  6

  Redbridge

  21

  1

  22

  Richmond upon Thames

  13

  7

  20

  Sutton

  25

  1

  26

  Waltham Forest

  16

  2

  18

  Dorset

  352

  13

  365

  Hampshire

  429

  26

  455

  Isle of Wight

  85

  8

  93

  Kent

  185

  50

  235

  Surrey

  180

  25

  205

  East Sussex

  378

  44

  422

  West Sussex

  320

  32

  352

  Wiltshire

  97

  26

  123

  Avon

  198

  59

  257

  Cornwall

  183

  23

  206

  Devon

  618

  68

  686

  Gloucestershire

  97

  11

  108

  Somerset

  96

  9

  105

  England

  7,968

  1,190

  9,158

  Note: Figures include certain homes which are exempt from registration under Section 1(5)(i) of the Registered Homes Act, including homes managed by bodies incorporated by royal charter.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to ensure that the level of inspection of residential homes provided by registering authorities under the provisions of the Residential Homes Act 1984 is sufficient.

  Mr. Mellor
  From 1 August 1988 the fees payable in respect of registration and inspection of residential care homes were substantially increased to enable local authorities to carry out their duties effectively. The minimum number of inspections was increased from one to two a year. In addition, the Department, in conjunction with the Welsh Office has commissioned training material for registration and inspection staff of authorities from the centre for environmental and social studies in aging at the polytechnic of north London. This material should be available later this year.

  The Department's social services inspectorate has carried out a study of the implementation of the Registered Homes Act 1984 by local authorities. Its report "Certain Standards" was published last year. The Wagner report, "Residential Care: A Positive Choice" which was also published last year, contained recommendations on
  78
  the regulation of these homes. Both reports are in the Library. We are giving careful consideration to the findings of these reports before deciding whether any change is desirable in the current arrangements.

  School Medicine
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each of the last five years for the Trent regional health authority, the number of nurses engaged in school medicine and related care of children.

  Mr. Mellor
  The numbers of staff in post working in school health and special schools are shown in the table.

  National Health Service staff in post in Trent regional health authority

  Nursing staff in primary health care at 30 September

  Whole-time equivalents1

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  School health

  350

  360

  340

  340

  320

  Special schools

  20

  20

  20

  10

  20

  School health and special schools

  370

  380

  360

  350

  340

  79
  Source: Department of Health (SR7) annual census of National Health Service non-medical manpower.

  1 Figures independently rounded to nearest 10 whole-time equivalents.

  Some nursing staff working in hospitals and the community will be engaged in the care of children as part of their general nursing duties. These staff cannot, however, be identified centrally.

  Trent Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the services provided by the Trent regional health authority; and what is the catchment area.

  Mr. Mellor
  Provision of local services is a matter for the health authorities concerned. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of Trent regional health authority's latest annual report which contains the information he seeks.

  Sex Change Operations
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of sex change operations performed by the National Health Service in the Trent regional health authority for(a) male to female and (b) female to male, for the last 20 years; and what has been the cost to public funds in each case.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 22 February at column 674.

  Electors
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East 28 February,Official Report, column 134, if he will supply a pre-publication list of the numbers of electors registered for each constituency in England and Wales for 1989–90.

  Mr. Freeman
  Statistics from the electoral registers for 1989–90 are still being assembled centrally. Figures relating to local government areas will be published in an OPCS Monitor (EL 89/1) at the end of April; those relating to parliamentary constituencies in "Electoral Statistics: 1989" (Series EL No. 16) at the end of May. I do not propose to supply pre-publication lists of numbers of electors.

  Glenside Hospital
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, with reference to his answers to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook),Official Report, 9 June 1988, columns 666–68 and to the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad), Official Report, 5 December 1988, column 88, he will now clarify the status of Glenside hospital in the South West regional health authority.

  Mr. Freeman
  The future role of Glenside hospital together with all other mental health units in Avon is being reviewed in the light of the White Paper "Working for Patients" and an Avon-wide mental health paper. A regional secure unit, Fromeside clinic, was opened in October 1988 on the Glenside site.

  Psychogeriatrics
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultants there are working full-time in psychogeriatrics in the United Kingdom; and how many people over the age of 65 years there are per consultant.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally at present. Psychogeriatrics has been established recently as a separate specialty and there are plans to collect manpower figures in the future. In a joint report published in February this year, the Royal Colleges of Psychiatrists and Physicians estimated that there are currently 243 consultants working in old-age psychiatry and that at the end of 1986 about 70 per cent. of the United Kingdom elderly population had a specialist psychogeriatric service available to them. These figures represent a considerable advance in recent years.

  Heart Disease
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the cost to the National Health Service of health problems due to heart disease; and whether he will take the initiative to develop policy on the prevention of the disease.

  Mr. Mellor
  The cost to the National Health Service in this country of the treatment of coronary heart disease is estimated to be over £500 million a year.

  It was the Government's concern about the high incidence of disease and premature death caused by coronary heart disease that led to the launch in April 1987 of the "Look After Your Heart" campaign, promoted jointly by the Department of Health and the Health Education Authority. This campaign has the long-term objective of contributing to a substantial reduction in the incidence of coronary heart disease in England by the year 2000. The campaign, which adopts a multi-faced approach involving mass media publicity and community and workplace strategies, is, we believe, proving highly successful in raising awareness of risk factors and stimulating widespread activity at national and local level aimed at encouraging and supporting the adoption of healthier lifestyles on smoking, alcohol, nutrition and exercise.

  In addition, the Standing Medical Advisory Committee has been asked to look at the cost-effectiveness of cholesterol screening. The primary care White Paper has emphasised the enhanced role of general practitioners in health promotion and prevention. The reports to be produced by the new local and regional directors of public health will provide each district and region with an epidemiological overview of the health of the local population, from which districts will be better able to identify the main health problems (including coronary heart disease) which their policies and programmes need to address.

  New Parent-Infant Network Charity
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department expects to complete its study of the New Parent-Infant Network charity.

  Mr. Freeman
  My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health expects to reach a decision on the New Parent-Infant Network's application for grant aid within the next few weeks.

  Operating Theatres
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the available theatre operating time in the National Health Service in England in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  I regret that the information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of theatre sessions available for operating in the National Health Service in England in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information on the use of operating theatres was not collected centrally prior to 1987–88. In 1987–88 the total number of sessions held in NHS hospitals in England was 692,804.

  Ambulances (Emergency Calls)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the average response times for emergency ambulance calls in 1979 and the latest year available in(a) London, (b) Birmingham, (c) Liverpool, (d) Glasgow, (e) Cornwall and (f) East Anglia.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information available on response times is not precisely in the form requested. Data are collected about the times within which(a) 50 per cent. and (b) 95 per cent. of calls are responded to, rather than the average response times.

  The latest figures relate to the financial year 1987–88, and are shown in the table. Figures for 1979 were not collected centrally. Figures relating to the financial years 1983–84 to 1986–87 are included in the package of health service indicators provided by the Department, which is in the Library. Information concerning provision of services in Glasgow is the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Patient Transport Services

  Response times within which 50 per cent. and 95 per cent. of calls are responded to

  Ambulance authority

  50 per cent. Minutes

  95 per cent. Minutes

  London

  10·00

  19·00

  Mersey Metropolitan

  6·50

  13·80

  West Midlands Metropolitan

  7·60

  13·80

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  9·00

  25·00

  Cambridgeshire

  8·00

  18·00

  Norfolk

  6·40

  17·70

  Suffolk

  7·50

  20·50

  Source: DH form KA34

  (a) Perinatal mortality rate by country 1979 to 1987

  Country

  Year

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  England

  14·6

  13·4

  11·7

  11·2

  10·3

  10·0

  9·8

  9·5

  8·9

  Wales

  15·6

  12·8

  14·1

  11·1

  11·3

  10·5

  10·2

  10·3

  9·2

  Scotland

  14·1

  13·1

  11·6

  11·5

  10·6

  11·0

  9·8

  10·2

  8·9

  Germany, Federal Republic

  312·6

  311·6

  310·5

  39·6

  39·3

  38·6

  37·9

  37·6

  n.a.

  Sweden

  19·1

  18·7

  17·7

  17·8

  17·3

  17·3

  47·3

  n.a.

  n.a.

  France

  33·8

  312·9

  312·3

  311·9

  311·4

  311·2

  310·7

  310·4

  n.a.

  United States of America

  213·9

  414·1

  113·4

  415·2

  414·5

  414·0

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the number of(a) hospitals, (b) casualty units and (c) ante-natal units that have been closed since 1979 in (i) London, (ii) Birmingham, (iii) Manchester, (iv) Coventry, (v) Derby, (vi) Reading, (vii) Glasgow, (viii) Leicester, (ix) Leeds and (x) Edinburgh.

  Mr. Freeman
  The following table gives the numbers of hospitals or units which we are aware have been approved for total closure from 1979—end 1987, the latest date for which figures are available.

  Information on casualty units and ante-natal clinics is not collected centrally.

  Number

  London

  63

  Birmingham

  3

  Manchester

  3

  Coventry

  1

  Derby

  8

  Reading

  1

  Leicester

  6

  Leeds

  6

  Information on hospitals in Glasgow and Edinburgh is the responsibility of my hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a list of all National Health Service hospitals(a) closed and (b) agreed for closure each year since 1979, for each regional health authority in England.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have placed in the Library a list of all hospitals or facilities approved for total closure for the period 1979—to the end of 1987. Many of these hospitals were closed in conjunction with the opening of new hospitals or facilities in the area.

  Mortality Rates
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide(a) perinatal, (b) neonatal and (c) infant mortality rates for each year since 1979 in Scotland, England and Wales separately with comparable figures for Germany, Sweden, France and the United States of America.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information for each year for England, Wales and Scotland is shown in the tables, which also give comparable data for the other countries. These latter data have been taken from a number of international publications as indicated1. Where no figure is given, this indicates that insufficient data were available from these publications.
  83
  Rates provided are as published in:

  1 United Nations "Demographic Yearbook".

  2 World Health Organisation "World Health Statistics Annual".

  3 The Statistical Office of the European Community "Eurostat Demographic Statistics".

  4 No rate published in volumes, calculation made from data provided in 1 and 2 above.

  (b) Neonatal mortality rate by country 1979 to 1987

  Country

  Year

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  England

  8·2

  7·6

  6·6

  6·2

  5·8

  5·5

  5·3

  5·2

  5·0

  Wales

  8·4

  7·9

  8·1

  6·9

  6·7

  5·7

  5·8

  5·6

  5·0

  Scotland

  8·7

  7·8

  6·9

  7·1

  5·8

  6·4

  5·5

  5·2

  4·7

  Germany, Federal Republic

  38·6

  37·8

  37·0

  36·3

  35·9

  35·5

  35·0

  34·8

  n.a.

  Sweden

  25·3

  24·9

  34·5

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  44·1

  n.a.

  n.a.

  France

  36·0

  35·8

  35·5

  35·3

  35·0

  34·7

  34·6

  34·3

  n.a.

  United States of America

  28·9

  48·5

  48·0

  27·7

  47·3

  47·0

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Rates provided are as published in:

  1 United Nations "Demographic Yearbook".

  2 World Health Organisation "World Health Statistics Annual".

  3 The Statistical Office of the European Community "Eurostat Demographic Statistics".

  4 No rate published in volumes, calculation made from data provided in 1 and 2 above.

  (c) Infant mortality rate by country 1979 to 1987

  Country

  Year

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  England

  12·8

  12·0

  10·9

  10·8

  10·0

  9·4

  9·2

  9·5

  9·1

  Wales

  12·4

  11·4

  12·6

  10·6

  10·7

  8·8

  9·8

  9·5

  9·5

  Scotland

  12·8

  12·1

  11·3

  11·4

  9·9

  10·3

  9·4

  8·8

  8·5

  Germany, Federal Republic

  313·6

  312·7

  311·6

  310·9

  310·2

  39·6

  39·0

  28·5

  n.a.

  Sweden

  17·5

  16·9

  47·0

  16·8

  27·2

  26·4

  26·7

  25·9

  n.a.

  France

  310·0

  310·0

  39·7

  39·5

  39·1

  38·3

  38·3

  27·9

  n.a.

  United States of America

  112·9

  112·6

  211·9

  111·5

  210·9

  110·6

  210·5

  210·4

  n.a.

  Rates provided are as published in:

  1 United Nations "Demographic Yearbook".

  2 World Health Organisation "World Health Statistics Annual".

  3 The Statistical Office of the European Community "Eurostat Demographic Statistics".

  4 No rate published in volumes, calculation made from data provided in 1 and 2 above.

  National Health Service (Staff Training)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide an estimate of the cost of training(a) a state registered nurse, (b) an operating theatre nurse, (c) a speech therapist, (d) a consultant and (e) a junior hospital doctor.

  Mr. Mellor
  The estimated cost of training a registered general nurse over a three-year course is £14,000. The figure excludes that part of the cost of the trainee's remuneration and other costs estimated to represent the value of the contribution the trainee makes to patient services. The other costs requested are not held centrally.

  National Health Service Reform
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which interested parties will be consulted by his Department over the composition of the list of treatments included in budgets for general practitioners.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My Department will be discussing the composition of the list of treatments included in practice budgets for general medical practitioners with the profession and with National Health Service managers. Specific invitations to discuss working papers 3 and 4 have been issued to the general medical services committee and the Royal College of General Practitioners.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the formula which will determine the weighting 84
  element of the capitation allowance payable to general practitioners under the terms of working paper and of the White Paper on the National Health Service.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The relative weights to be included in the capitation formula will be determined after the discussions with interested parties, referred to in the working paper on indicative prescribing budgets for general medical practitioners, have taken place.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is his intention that where a group practice opts out of the budget-holding scheme for general practitioners the practice income will be preserved at the level of the last year of budget holding.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  If a practice decides to leave the practice budget scheme, the normal remuneration arrangements for general medical practitioners will apply.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will publish the evidence relating to working paper 3 of the White Paper on the National Health Service, in respect of practice budgets offering general practitioners an opportunity to improve the quality of their services.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Practice budgets will offer general medical practitioners an opportunity to improve the quality and standard of service to patients. Those practices with budgets will be able to decide how to make the most effective use of funds in order to provide the best possible service to their patients. The proposed development of
  85
  medical audit should ensure the maintenance and indeed raising of standards both generally and in participating practices. Improving the quality of family doctor services is also a major objective of the White Paper "Promoting Better Health". The proposals set out in "General Practice in the NHS: A New Contract", published in February, should achieve that objective by better rewarding those doctors whose standards are high and who provide a wide range of high quality services geared to patients' needs.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what mechanisms will be introduced to ensure impartial judgments are made as to the appropriateness of patient referrals to accident and emergency units in order to meet the requirements of the White Paper on the National Health Service that accident and emergency referral would not be used as a substitute for out-patient referral.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Health authorities will be expected to make arrangements at hospital level to monitor attendances to ensure that referrals to accident and emergency units are not used as a substitute for out-patient referrals.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what formulae will be used to measure relative need for services provided by general practitioners who become budget-holders under the terms of the Government's White Paper on the National Health Service.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We are now considering the precise method of determining the relative need for services by patients. The practice budget scheme will be structured so that general medical practitioners have no financial incentive to refuse to treat any categories of patients.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what mechanisms exist, or will be established, within regional health authorities, to enable them to adjudicate in disputes arising over the treatments to be included within general practitioner's budgets, as proposed in working paper 3 of the White Paper on the National Health Service.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Regional health authorities already have medical advice available to them which could he used for this purpose.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has collected on whether doctors will seek to remove patients from their lists on budgetary grounds where the costs of investigation and treatment are borne by general practitioner's practices.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Practice budgets will be set at a level which will reflect the relative need for services by patients registered with the practice. The elderly will attract a higher contribution to the budget than the young, and in exceptional cases adjustments will be made in respect of individual patients who need more costly treatment.

  The Government do not believe that doctors will seek to remove patients from their lists on budgetary grounds nor be slow to accept patients. If, however, a practice did adopt a policy of selective registration, it could have its budget withdrawn by the RHA.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he proposes to adjust indicative budgets for general 86
  practitioners to accommodate practices which initially have below average prescribing costs but rapidly increase their diagnosis and treatment rates for common conditions.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We accept that the properly planned introduction of improved patient services, such as screening for certain conditions, may lead to an increase in prescribing of particular drugs. Practices intending to introduce such services will need to discuss their plans in advance with the family practitioner committee so that the financial implications can be fully considered when allocating prescribing budgets to practices.

  As set out in working paper 4, "Indicative Prescribing Budgets for General Medical Practitioners", the FPC will be expected to compare expenditure with its budget profile and also information on what is prescribed and dispensed. They will be expected to investigate any significant diversions of actual and planned expenditure and take early and effective action. The FPC will be expected to accept and accommodate reasonable explanations for the variation.

  Preventive Services
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been conducted to establish the effect of attaching a financial cost to preventive services provided by general practitioners on uptake of these services.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Health promotion and illness prevention are central to the Government's objectives For general practitioner services. As made clear in "General Practice in the NHS: A New Contract", published in February, the Government will make the provision of health promotion a specific requirement in general practitioners' terms of service, and will introduce a health promotion sessional payment.

  As working paper 3, "Practice Budgets for General Medical Practitioners", makes clear, the Department will discuss with the medical profession whether budgets should be set at a level which includes the cost of diagnostic investigations associated with health prevention and screening or whether they should be excluded from the scope of the scheme and charged to the patient's DHA.

  Plastic Surgery
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average waiting time for plastic surgery patients who have not yet been admitted to hospital(a) in the Leicestershire health authority, (b) in the Trent region and (c) nationally.

  Mr. Mellor
  Average waiting times for those awaiting admission to hospital are not available centrally. The numbers on the waiting list are analysed by time waited and a percentage distribution based on this information is given in the table.
  87

  Percentage distribution of cases on the in-patient waiting list by time waited, as at 30 September 1988, Plastic surgery specialty

  Months waited

  0 to 2

  3 to 5

  6 to 8

  9 to 11

  12+

  Leicestershire District Health Authority

  18

  10

  10

  9

  53

  Trent Regional Health Authority

  12

  12

  10

  10

  57

  England

  14

  12

  9

  7

  58

  Smoking
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the level of expenditure by the Health Education Authority and the Health Education Council, in the last five years for which figures are available, on publicity and other materials designed to discourage smoking.

  Mr. Mellor
  The figures (actual expenditure) are as follows:

  Health Education Council

  Campaigns/ associated expenditure £

  1983–84

  2,629,708

  1984–85

  1,624,221

  1985–86

  2,345,704

  1986–87

  1,118,025

  Health Education Authority

  1987–88 £

  Campaigns/Promotion

  562,635

  Publications

  170,776

  These figures do not reflect total spending, since smoking health education is included in many other authority programmes, such as "Look After Your Heart", cancer, and the young people's programme.

  On 25 January 1989 my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced a new £2 million a year campaign over the next four years, to be run jointly by the Department of Health and the Health Education Authority, aimed at halving the proportion of teenagers who smoke.

  Lipid-lowering Drugs
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the level and cost of prescribing lipid-lowering drugs for the last 12 month period for which figures are available; and what were the comparable figures for the corresponding periods over the previous five years.

  Mr. Mellor
  The number of prescriptions for and net ingredient cost of lipid-lowering drugs dispensed by community pharmacists in England in each of the last six years was as follows:

  Number of Prescriptions (thousand)

  Net Ingredient Cost (£ million)

  1987

  261

  4·7

  1986

  241

  3·4

  1985

  238

  2·8

  88

  Number of Prescriptions (thousand)

  Net Ingredient Cost (£ million)

  1984

  239

  2·4

  1983

  240

  2·2

  1982

  264

  2·1

  Private Hospitals
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision there is for the inspection of private hospitals.

  Mr. Mellor
  District health authorities are required to inspect each private hospital at least twice a year. Inspections may be unannounced and "out of hours".

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the names and ownership by company of private hospitals operating in each of the English health regions.

  Mr. Mellor
  This information is not collected centrally. However, "Laing's Review of Private Health Care 1988," a copy of which is in the Library, gives details of private hospitals.

  Water Supplies
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals or other National Health Service units receive water from(a) boreholes and (b) non-mains sources.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information on the number of hospitals or other NHS units receiving water from boreholes or other non-mains sources is not available. Health authorities are, however, required to comply with the water byelaws in force and comprehensive advice on water supply and quality was issued to them most recently in the DH code of practice, the control of legionellae in health care premises.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what inspection is undertaken of water supplies used(a) in the Queen's medical centre, Nottingham and (b) in National Health Service hospitals as standard procedure.

  Mr. Freeman
  In general, responsibility for the quality of water, from whatever source, rests with the appropriate water authority. The quality of water stored and distributed within all health care premises is mainly governed by inspection and maintenance of plant and equipment in those premises and I refer to my other reply to him today.

  Operation Statistics
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations were contracted out to private hospitals in the Trent regional health authority; and at what cost during 1988.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information is not available in the form requested. The latest available figures for Trent are for the 1986 calendar year and show a total of 816 discharges and deaths of patients receiving treatment under contractual arrangements with institutions outside the NHS. Expenditure in the Trent region on contractual
  89
  arrangements for patient treatment with non-NHS hospitals and homes was about £1,189,000 in 1986–87. This is a total figure and so includes sums incurred under contracts with voluntary and other organisations as well as private hospitals as such.

  Whitley Council Negotiating Machinery
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to review the Whitley council negotiating machinery.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Not at the moment. The White Paper "Working for Patients" records our objective progressively to introduce greater local flexibility into the determination of NHS pay and conditions of service. This will require changes in the nature and scope of national agreements but not necessarily in the present central negotiating machinery.

  Wakefield District Health Authority
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions since its inception Wakefield district health authority has amended a policy decision in respect of a proposed closure or change of use of health buildings following public consultation in accordance with his Department's circular HSC(15)207.

  Mr. Freeman
  Such information is not collected centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of Wakefield health authority in the event that such detail is held locally.

  Spina Bifida
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were treated for spina bifida during each of the last three years; what was the cost per patient; and if he will make a statement.

  Number of (a) conceptions, (b) terminations with central nervous system malformation in foetus1 as principal medical condition,

  England and Wales, Regional Health Authority of usual residence, 1985 to 1987

  1985

  1986

  1987

  (a) (000's)

  (b)

  (b) as a percentage of (a)

  (a) (000's)

  (b)

  (b) as a percentage of (a)

  (a) (000s)

  (b)

  (b) as a percentage of (a)

  England and Wales

  797·2

  520

  ·07

  818·9

  557

  ·07

  841·1

  531

  ·06

  Regional Health Authorities

  Northern

  46·1

  44

  ·1

  46·6

  36

  ·08

  47·1

  56

  ·12

  Yorkshire

  56·2

  27

  ·05

  57·4

  45

  ·08

  58·7

  33

  ·06

  Trent

  69·1

  45

  ·07

  70·9

  63

  ·09

  72·6

  56

  ·08

  East Anglian

  28·6

  21

  ·07

  30·1

  24

  ·08

  30·7

  23

  ·07

  North West Thames

  63·2

  23

  ·04

  64·5

  20

  ·03

  66·4

  25

  ·04

  North East Thames

  69·3

  40

  ·06

  71·2

  38

  ·05

  74·5

  43

  ·06

  South East Thames

  59·4

  25

  ·04

  62·9

  25

  ·04

  65·0

  29

  ·04

  South West Thames

  46·0

  22

  ·05

  47·5

  20

  ·04

  48·9

  18

  ·04

  Wessex

  41·8

  34

  ·08

  43·5

  45

  ·1

  44·5

  29

  ·07

  Oxford

  39·3

  24

  ·06

  40·9

  34

  ·08

  42·1

  25

  ·06

  South Western

  44·7

  21

  ·05

  45·9

  36

  ·08

  47·3

  28

  ·06

  West Midland

  85·6

  66

  ·08

  87·3

  42

  ·05

  89·6

  45

  ·05

  Mersey

  38·8

  36

  ·09

  39·4

  25

  ·06

  40·0

  45

  ·11

  North Western

  65·9

  49

  ·07

  66·5

  49

  ·07

  68·5

  46

  ·07

  1 International classification of diseases (9th revision) 655·0

  90
  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested for the East three years for which data are available centrally is given in the following table.

  Estimated number of in-patients with main diagnosis of spina bifida (ICD 741 )1, discharged from National Health Service non- psychiatric hospitals, England

  Number

  1983

  2,390

  1984

  1,960

  1985

  2,070

  1 ICD—International Classification of Diseases: 9th revision.

  The cost of hospital treatment is estimated at £1,500 per in-patient stay at 1987—88 prices. Expenditure on care of patients in the community cannot reliably be estimated from data held centrally.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what percentage of pregnant woman were screened for spina bifida during the last three years, listed by regions;

  (2) how many pregnant mothers were screened for spina bifida during the last three years; what was the cost per patient; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not collected centrally. However, I understand that it is common clinical practice to offer screening for spina bifida to pregnant women.

  Neural Tube Defects
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many pregnancies were terminated because of neural tube defects during each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what percentage of pregnant women had terminations for neural tube defects during each of the last three years, listed by regions.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is shown in the table.

  Nursing Home Owners (Payments)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what payments are made by nursing home owners to general practitioners to facilitate their provision of primary care and other services.

  Mr. Mellor
  Under his terms of service a general practitioner, except in certain specified circumstances which are not relevant here, may not accept a fee or any other remuneration for any treatment which he gives to a person for whom he is responsible to provide general medical service.

  Nurses (Regrading)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if nurses who commenced post-registration training on or after 1 April 1988 have the right of appeal concerning their recent clinical grading; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Yes. All nursing and midwifery staff whose posts were regraded have the right of appeal under the general Whitley council appeals procedure.

  Skin and Hair Cream
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the levels of chlorinated biphenyls and organophosphates found in lanolin-based skin and hair creams with particular reference to nipple and breast creams.

  Mr. Freeman
  None. Chlorinated biphenyls are not used for animal treatment and organophosphates are used

  Table 1

  Net current expenditure by local authorities (i) Cash

  £ thousands

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  Day nurseries

  Playgroups

  Child minding

  Family centres

  Year

  Local authority

  Other

  Local authority

  Other

  Local authority

  Other

  All

  1975–76

  23,919

  433

  1,489

  420

  —

  —

  854

  1976–77

  29,555

  581

  1,866

  523

  —

  —

  1,017

  1977–78

  32,769

  726

  2,177

  486

  —

  —

  1,160

  1978–79

  36,704

  950

  2,222

  743

  —

  —

  1,832

  1979–80

  43,034

  1,119

  3,200

  688

  —

  —

  2,247

  1980–81

  56,952

  1,147

  4,019

  524

  —

  —

  3,081

  1981–82

  64,657

  1,570

  4,708

  670

  —

  —

  3,948

  1982–83

  71,427

  1,657

  5,265

  524

  934

  842

  5,170

  1983–84

  77,830

  1,619

  5,417

  530

  1,505

  1,258

  6,291

  1984–85

  83,030

  1,713

  5,686

  613

  1,917

  1,489

  7,655

  1985–86

  84,180

  1,914

  6,037

  804

  2,831

  1,418

  13,526

  1986–87

  95,779

  1,972

  8,008

  967

  3,517

  1,496

  13,367

  (ii) In real terms at 1986–87 prices (GDP deflator)

  1975–76

  66,480

  1,202

  4,140

  1,168

  —

  —

  2,374

  1976–77

  72,511

  1,425

  4,577

  1,283

  —

  —

  2,496

  1977–78

  70,693

  1,567

  4,696

  1,047

  —

  —

  2,502

  1978–79

  71,404

  1,849

  4,323

  1,445

  —

  —

  3,564

  1979–80

  71,774

  1,866

  5,337

  1,148

  —

  —

  3,748

  1980–81

  80,123

  1,614

  5,654

  737

  —

  —

  4,335

  1981–82

  82,882

  2,013

  6,035

  859

  —

  —

  5,061

  1982–83

  85,507

  1,984

  6,303

  627

  1,118

  1,008

  6,189

  1983–84

  89,046

  1,852

  6,198

  606

  1,722

  1,439

  7,198

  1984–85

  90,523

  1,868

  6,199

  668

  2,090

  1,623

  8,346

  1985–86

  87,012

  1,978

  6,240

  831

  2,926

  1,466

  13,981

  1986–87

  95,779

  1,972

  8,008

  967

  3,517

  1,496

  13,367

  92
  in a way that should leave minimal residues in the lanolin used for manufacturing these creams. The main supplies provide very tight specifications for lanolin used in cosmetics.

  Child Care
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total public expenditure on(a) local authority day nurseries, (b) local authority playgroups and (c) other day care facilities for each year from 1975 to 1988 in (i) cash and (ii) real terms; and what was the total number of children participating in each type of provision for each year, together with the percentage that total was of all children in the three to four years age group.

  Mr. Mellor
  Information is not collected centrally on the exact age of children participating in each type of day care.

  Table 1 gives the net current expenditure by local authorities for the years 1975–76 to 1986–87 inclusive. Data for 1987–88 are not yet available.

  The information available centrally on the numbers of children participating in local authority provision for children under five is published annually in "Children's day care facilities, at 31 March, England" (A/F/6), copies of which are available in the Library.

  Table 2 gives these figures, expressed as a percentage of all children aged three and four years.

  Information for 1988 is not yet available.
  93

  Table 2: Local authority provision of day care for children, England, 1975–87: Numbers as a percentage of children aged three and four1

  Day nurseries

  Playgroups

  Child minding

  As at 31 March

  Children on registers of facilities provided by local authorities

  Children placed and paid for by local authorities in other facilities

  Children on registers of facilities provided by local authorities

  Children placed and paid for by local authorities in other facilities

  Places available with local authority provided childminders

  Children placed and paid for by local authorities with other childminders

  1975

  1·81

  0·08

  0·20

  0·30

  2—

  0·05

  1976

  1·97

  0·11

  0·20

  0·31

  2—

  0·07

  1977

  2·19

  0·12

  0·19

  0·36

  2—

  0·09

  1978

  2·35

  0·12

  0·20

  3—

  3—

  3—

  1979

  2·48

  0·14

  3—

  0·44

  3—

  3—

  1980

  2·68

  0·17

  0·22

  0·40

  3—

  3—

  1981

  2·90

  0·18

  0·24

  0·39

  3—

  3—

  1982

  3·00

  0·15

  0·26

  0·49

  0·23

  0·18

  1983

  2·91

  0·13

  0·28

  0·63

  0·20

  0·22

  1984

  2·87

  0·12

  0·25

  0·78

  0·19

  0·18

  1985

  2·76

  0·13

  0·27

  0·81

  0·10

  0·25

  1986

  2·95

  0·15

  0·27

  0·97

  0·13

  0·33

  1987

  2·93

  0·15

  0·28

  1·03

  0·15

  0·42

  1 Information on the exact age of children using each type of provision is not collected centrally; some children using day care provision are aged under three

  2 Data not available

  3 Data available, but not reliable

  Notes:

  Information about the number of children attending family centres is not collected.

  General Practitioners
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many general practitioner practices there are in each family practitioner area; and what is the average list size in each family practitioner area to England;

  (2) how many general practitioner practices there are with 11.000 or more patients for each family practitioner committee area in England.

  Mr. Mellor
  A table giving the information requested as at 1 October 1987 (the latest date for which figures are available) has been placed in the Library.

  Hospital Trusts
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the level of remuneration proposed for chairs and non-executive directors of National Health Service hospital trusts will be in line with the existing payments made to chairs of health authorities.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I am considering the question of remuneration for the chairmen and non-executive members of National Health Service hospital trusts.

  Community Health Councils
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what will be the rights of community health councils in relation to non-National Health Service agencies providing hospital services under contract to health authorities as proposed by the National Health Service White Paper; and how they will be resourced to meet the additional work load arising.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Rights of community health councils will not change as a result of the White Paper proposals. I do not therefore foresee that they will experience any problem over carrying out their statutory duty to represent the interests of National Health Service patients in their districts. They receive adequate resources for that purpose and the White Paper does not impose any additional duties or burdens upon them.

  Ambulances (Costs)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the current average cost of purchase of an ambulance.

  Mr. Freeman
  Based on annual returns from all regional health authorities the average overall cost of purchase of first line ambulances in 1988–89, including VAT, was £21,568 for glass reinforced plastic vehicles and £20,291 for van conversions.

  Eyes and Teeth (Tests)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the cost in 1988 of providing free tests for eyes and teeth.

  Mr. Mellor
  Information on costs is available only by financial year. The estimated cost in England of sight tests provided under the general ophthalmic service in 1988–89, the final 12 months before withdrawal of the universal entitlement to National Health Service sight tests is £114 million. The cost to the general dental service of National Health Service dental examinations in 1987–88, the last full year in which no patient charges were levied for examinations, was £113 million.

  Computer Consultants
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total amount spent by his Department in 1988 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by his Department in 1988, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment.

  Mr. Mellor
  The estimated total expenditure in 1988 on health-related consultancy contracts was £2·413 million.

  Expenditure was from a joint health and social security budget and has had to be apportioned where consultants were engaged on projects covering both health and social security matters.
  95
  A list giving details of each health-related management or computer consultancy awarded in 1988 has been placed in the Library.

  Blood Transfusion Service (West Midlands)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much blood has(a) been at the disposal of (b) been provided to private hospitals by the West Midlands regional blood transfusion service for each of the years; 1988–89, 1987–88 and 1986–87.

  Mr. Freeman
  The latest information held centrally for the West Midlands regional blood transfusion service is as follows:

  Number of useable blood donations collected

  Number of units of blood supplied to non-NHS hospitals

  1986

  192,599

  10,154

  19871

  192,468

  9,086

  1 Provisional figures.

  Operating Department Assistants
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Warrington, North of Friday, 17 March,Official Report, column 388, when the working group of the management side of the professional and technical staff B Whitley council examining the pay and grade structures of operating department assistants will make its report.

  Mr. Mellor
  I understand that the PTB management side's working group expects to report back in time for its conclusions to influence pay negotiations this year.

  Hon. Member for Derbyshire, South
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Warrington North, of 20 February,Official Report, column 525, who will pay the £170 for the administrative officer who is managing and safeguarding papers which are being consulted by the former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at his Department.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The cost of £170 for managing and safeguarding the papers being consulted by the former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will be met by my Department in accordance with long standing practice in these matters.

  Chemotherapy
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all the centres of research into chemotherapy to treat cancer, the means of financing such centres and research papers published arising from the research.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not held centrally.

  Children Bill [Lords]
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated amount of extra grant aid needed by local authorities to implement the provisions of the Children Bill[Lords]; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Discussions have taken place with the local authority associations about the additional costs to local 96
  authorities of the provisions of the Children Bill, and the estimates are set out in the financial memorandum to the Bill. The estimates and any further comments by the associations will be taken into account in determining the level of central Government support to local authorities at the appropriate time.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the proposed timetable for the introduction of any Act resulting from the Children Bill[Lords]; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor at Second Reading in the other place on 6 December at column 535.

  Guardians ad Litem
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the four panels of guardians ad litem currently being surveyed by the social services inspectorate; if he will give the terms of reference for this survey; and if he will place a copy of the report of the survey in the Library.

  Mr. Mellor
  The social services inspectorate is conducting(a) a postal survey of all panels of guardians ad litem and reporting officers in England and (b) more detailed inspections of panels administered singly by Dorset and Cumbria local authorities and in consortia by Wigan, Salford and Bolton and Leeds, Bradford and Calderdale authorities.

  The inspectorate will study demand for the services of panel members and how this is being met including the resources utilised, the skills required and the workloads of individual panel members; examine how individual members fulfil their role and arrangements for monitoring; and report with recommendations of national relevance.

  I expect to be able to publish the report later this year.

  Pharmaceutical Prices
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pharmaceutical companies have not applied for any price increases in the last two, three and five years.

  Mr. Mellor
  For companies who have provided full financial returns under the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme for each year since 1984, the numbers of companies not applying for any price increase from the date shown to 31 December 1988 is as follows:

  Number

  1 January 1987

  17

  1 January 1986

  15

  1 January 1984

  10

  Sight Testing
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will publish the report of his Department's optical adviser on the accuracy and reliability of autorefraction and auto optitesters for testing sight;

  (2) if he will permit the lower tier sight test proposed in his recent consultative letter to be conducted by staff who are not qualified opticians using an autorefractor and an auto optitester.
  97
  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 23 March 1989]: The Opticians Act 1958 provides that sight tests may only be conducted by a registered medical practitioner or registered ophthalmic optician. We have no plans at present to change this requirement. I am not aware of any report on autorefractors or auto optitesters but I understand that autorefractors and auto optitesters offer a reasonably accurate method of testing sight although they cannot provide a test for binocular vision.

  Sheep Dips
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the Medical Research Council on the link between sheep dip and cot deaths.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 23 March 1989]: There have been no discussions between the Secretary of State and the Medical Research Council (MRC) on the possibility of a link between sheep dip and cot deaths.

  The MRC, which is the main agency through which the Government supports medical research, receives a grant-in-aid from the Department of Education and Science. Over the years, the MRC has funded a wide range of research related to cot deaths. Officials will be discussing with the MRC what further avenues can be fruitfully pursued.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Production and Employment
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the growth in production, employment and productivity for(a) manufacturing industry and (b) pharmaceuticals over the period 1979 to the present; and if he will in each case estimate what part (i) changes in employment and (ii) changes in production have had on productivity changes.

  Mr. Maude
  The official data series on productivity are published by the Department of Employment in the Employment Gazette but these do not include separately identifiable figures for the pharmaceutical industry. The following data from the annual census of production provide the required information for manufacturing industry and the pharmaceutical industry. These figures may show different movements from the official series which are derived from other sources. Full data for years after 1986 are not yet available.

  Year

  Production (Gross value added) (1985 prices)

  Employment

  Productivity (Gross value added per head) (1985 prices)

  £ billion

  thousands

  £ thousands

  Manufacturing industry

  1979

  85·4

  6,910

  12·4

  1980

  75·9

  6,495

  11·7

  1981

  70·3

  5,778

  12·2

  1982

  68·2

  5,360

  12·7

  1983

  72·7

  5,070

  14·3

  1984

  76·0

  5,059

  15·0

  1985

  76·5

  4,976

  15·4

  1986

  75·9

  4,878

  15·6

  Pharmaceutical products1

  1979

  1·67

  74·4

  22·4

  1980

  1·58

  73·3

  21·6

  98

  Year

  Production (Gross value added) (1985 prices)

  Employment

  Productivity (Gross value added per head) (1985 prices)

  £ billion

  thousands

  £ thousands

  1981

  1·52

  69·8

  21·8

  1982

  1·69

  68·6

  24·6

  1983

  1·75

  67·9

  25·7

  1984

  1·92

  67·6

  28·5

  1985

  1·95

  66·9

  29·1

  1986

  20·6

  68·4

  30·1

  1 The pharmaceutical products industry comprises Group 257 of the Standard Industrial Classification (Revised 1980).

  1 The pharmaceutical products industry comprises Group 257 of the Standard Industrial Classification (Revised 1980).

  Source Annual Census of Production.

  Bicycle Imports
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what consideration he has given to the Bicycle Association's Official Report for the year ended 1988, and if, in the light of the increase in cycle imports from 600,000 in 1986 to 1,305,000 in 1988, he will seek a review of the European Economic Community duty-free provisions for underdeveloped or developing nations;

  (2) if he will review China's developing nation status in view of changes in its industrial output.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Bicycle Association's annual report does not refer to the developing country imports nor have I received representations. The European Community's generalised system of preference for developing countries is reviewed each year. The competitiveness of products is one of the factors taken into account in the decision to renew the arrangements.

  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will review the duties on Taiwanese and Singapore components which can be imported free of duty as components of cycles imported from underdeveloped countries, but become subject to duty if imported for use in British cycle manufacture.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  There is no tariff concession for imports of bicycles and components from Taiwan. Both bicycles and components from Singapore are covered by the EC's generalised system of preferences.

  EFTA
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's relations with the EFTA countries.

  Mr. Maude
  United Kingdom relations with the EFTA countries are already very close—both bilaterally and through EC/EFTA co-operation. We are firmly committed to strengthening these relations still further. The EFTA countries are a major trading partner and all have free trade agreements with the EC. Close co-operation continues under the framework of the Luxembourg declaration agreed by EC and EFTA Ministers in 1984. This has already resulted in worthwhile practical achievements in reducing and eliminating remaining barriers to trade. At an informal EC/EFTA ministerial meeting on 20 March, ways of broadening and deepening the relationship were discussed. There will be a further ministerial meeting before the end of the year. The United Kingdom welcomes this intensification of activities and will play a full role in it.

  Link Scheme
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give the Government funds committed in 1987 and 1988 under the link scheme.

  Mr. Forth
  The first five link programmes were announced on 3 February 1988 and subsequently another five programmes were announced during the year. Total Government funding authorised under the 10 link programmes announced in 1988 amounted to £59·3 million.

  Expenditure at current prices

  £ millions

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1.Regional development grants1

  East Midlands

  2·3

  2·4

  3·2

  7·2

  8·8

  8·2

  3·8

  4·4

  8·4

  7·1

  Northern

  135·2

  122·4

  117·5

  143·9

  127·2

  101·3

  89·0

  67·3

  102·2

  61·7

  North West

  64·3

  58·7

  105·7

  143·4

  97·3

  83·0

  79·9

  62·1

  101·3

  45·7

  South West

  6·0

  5·0

  8·5

  10·3

  11·0

  7·8

  9·5

  8·6

  15·3

  7·0

  West Midlands

  0·1

  neg

  0·1

  neg

  0·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  30·2

  21·5

  38·7

  47·1

  36·4

  23·5

  26·8

  24·2

  27·1

  17·8

  England2

  238·1

  210·0

  273·8

  351·8

  280·7

  223·8

  209·1

  166·5

  254·3

  139·3

  2. Regional selective assistance

  East Midlands

  0·7

  0·9

  0·6

  1·0

  4·2

  8·7

  6·4

  3·9

  2·2

  2·3

  Northern

  10·7

  11·5

  15·6

  22·6

  21·1

  15·4

  15 3

  16·2

  18·1

  24·7

  North West

  40·1

  23·3

  19·3

  14·6

  18·3

  13·6

  13·7

  12·7

  18·4

  19·6

  South West

  2·4

  2·7

  2·5

  1·7

  2·7

  2·0

  2·1

  2·5

  5·2

  4·3

  West Midlands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5·5

  9·8

  18·3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  5·2

  6·8

  6·6

  7·1

  10·6

  8·8

  9·7

  8·3

  10·1

  14·1

  England3

  59·1

  46·7

  48·6

  54·4

  68·7

  62·2

  72·9

  74·8

  100·6

  122·9

  Expenditure at constant (1987–88 = 100) prices

  3.Regional development grants1

  East Midlands

  4·7

  4·2

  4·7

  9·7

  11·1

  9·9

  4·4

  4·8

  8·8

  7·1

  Northern

  276·5

  214·4

  173·6

  193·7

  160·0

  121·8

  101·9

  73·1

  107·4

  61·7

  North West

  131·5

  102·8

  156·1

  193·0

  122·4

  99·8

  91·5

  67·4

  106·4

  45·7

  South West

  12·3

  8·8

  12·6

  13·0

  13·8

  9·4

  10·9

  9·3

  16·1

  7·0

  West Midlands

  0·2

  neg

  0·1

  neg

  0·1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  62·8

  37·7

  57·2

  63·4

  45·8

  28·2

  30·7

  26·3

  28·5

  17·8

  England2

  486·9

  367·8

  404·4

  473·5

  353·1

  269·0

  239·5

  180·8

  267·1

  139·3

  4.Regional selective assistance

  East Midlands

  1·4

  1·6

  0·9

  1·3

  5·3

  10·5

  7·3

  4·2

  2·3

  2·3

  Northern

  21·8

  20·1

  23·0

  30·4

  26·5

  18·5

  17·5

  17·6

  19·3

  24·7

  North West

  82·0

  40·8

  28·5

  19·7

  23·0

  16·3

  15·7

  13·8

  19·3

  19·6

  South West

  4·9

  4·7

  3·7

  2·3

  3·4

  2·4

  2·4

  2·7

  5·5

  4·3

  West Midlands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6·0

  10·3

  18·3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  10·6

  11·9

  9·7

  9·6

  13·3

  10·6

  11·1

  9·0

  10·6

  14·1

  England3

  120·9

  81·8

  71·8

  73·2

  86·4

  74·8

  83·5

  81·2

  105·7

  122·9

  Notes:

  1 RDG figures cover expenditure under the original and revised schemes.

  2 Totals do not always equal component parts due to rounding.

  3 At the regional level RSA figures include only industrial and training grants: England figures include some unallocated project grants and expenditure under the business improvement services and exchange risk guarantee schemes. Expenditure under these two schemes cannot be broken down to the regional level.

  The provisional gross outturn for RDG for England as a whole in 1988–89 is £155 million at current prices, £144 million at constant 1987–88 prices; and for RSA £135 million (current), £126 million (constant).

  The planned provision (net of domestic receipts) for RDG and RSA in the period 1989–90 to 1991–92 is as follows:

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will provide figures for spending on(a) regional assistance and (b) regional development grants for England, by region, for each year from 1978–79 to 1988–89 and plans for 1989–90 to 1991–92, in cash and at 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. Atkins
  Gross annual expenditure on regional development grants and regional selective assistance by English region from 1978–79 to 1987–88 at current and constant (1987–88= 100) prices was as follows:

  1989–901 £ million

  1990–912 £ million

  1991–922 £ million

  Planned provision at current prices

  Regional development grants

  125

  110

  55

  Regional selective assistance3

  145

  150

  160

  Planned provision at constant prices

  Regional development grants

  111

  93

  45

  Regional selective assistance3

  128

  127

  132

  101
  1 Supply estimates.

  2 As underlying the 1989 public expenditure White Paper.

  3 Includes expenditure on industrial and training grants, and the business improvement services and exchange risk guarantee schemes.

  Petrol Sales
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether, in the light of the absence of a breakdown of United Kingdom petrol sales by company type, he will refer the industry to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Mr. Maude
  The Director General of Fair Trading referred the wholesale supply of petrol in the United Kingdom to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on 9 November 1988. The commission was given 12 months in which to report.

  Rating Reform (Royal Mail)
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what restrictions are there on the use of the words "Royal Mail" in marketing services in relation to the implementation of the community charge.

  Mr. Forth
  Only standard services currently offered by the Post Office to any of its customers are being offered to local authorities to assist them in the implementation of the community charge. Royal Mail Letters, like Royal Mail Parcels, uses the words Royal Mail in marketing these standard services.

  Mr. Anthony Wheeler and Mr. Richard Savill
  Sir Charles Morrison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, whether any of his Department's

  Table A

  Imports at current prices (£ million)

  SIC Class

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  21 Melalliferous ores extraction and preparation

  686

  758

  733

  738

  628

  799

  837

  907

  716

  749

  22 Metal manufacluring

  2,340

  3,021

  4,716

  3,151

  3,229

  4,055

  3,947

  4,065

  4,413

  4,276

  23 Extraction of minerals N.E.S.

  1,070

  1,462

  1,364

  991

  1,031

  1,427

  1,435

  1,544

  1,789

  1,674

  24 Non-metallic mineral products

  348

  437

  422

  463

  546

  683

  819

  891

  989

  1,140

  25 Chemical industry

  2,757

  3,462

  3,302

  3,818

  4,430

  5,331

  6,542

  7,034

  7,311

  8,358

  26 Man-madc fibres

  222

  263

  233

  255

  284

  322

  346

  383

  420

  471

  31 Metal goods N.E.S.

  600

  718

  768

  741

  880

  1,030

  1,246

  1,380

  1,519

  1,778

  32 Mechanical engineering

  3,446

  3,517

  3,540

  3,632

  4,102

  4,720

  5,543

  6,158

  6,593

  7,578

  33 Office machinery and data processing equipment

  984

  1,205

  1,265

  1,489

  1,934

  2,767

  3,827

  4,213

  4,230

  5,098

  34 Electrical and electronic engineering

  2,420

  2,898

  3,139

  3,984

  4,871

  6,038

  7,309

  8,246

  8,732

  10,018

  35 Motor vehicles and their parts

  2,714

  3,854

  3,233

  3,369

  4,505

  5,772

  6,058

  6,963

  8,178

  9,058

  36 Other transport equipment

  1,114

  1,362

  2,173

  1,769

  2,054

  2,146

  2,534

  3,035

  2,889

  3,212

  37 Instrument engineering

  686

  757

  772

  881

  988

  1,195

  1,401

  1,503

  1,617

  1,696

  41–42 Food, drink and tabacco

  4,372

  4,918

  4,626

  4,979

  5,548

  6,095

  7,013

  7,294

  7,666

  7,951

  43 Textile industry

  1,520

  1,739

  1,608

  1,865

  2,026

  2,439

  2,927

  3,192

  3,400

  3,831

  44 Leather and leather goods

  182

  265

  202

  220

  227

  272

  348

  406

  420

  499

  45 Footwear and clothing industries

  1,052

  1,417

  1,442

  1,662

  1,758

  1,909

  2,358

  2,488

  2,715

  3,114

  46 Timber and wooden furniture

  1,175

  1,456

  1,324

  1,389

  1,488

  1,981

  2,186

  2,124

  2,383

  2,751

  47 Paper, printing and publishing

  1,557

  1,816

  1,910

  2,224

  2,376

  2,679

  3,338

  3,537

  3,768

  4,569

  48 Rubber and plastics processing

  695

  858

  849

  951

  1,126

  1,412

  1,653

  1,895

  2,180

  2,652

  49 Other manufacturing

  903

  1,165

  1,607

  1,544

  1,311

  1,465

  1,713

  1,300

  1,589

  1,646

  102
  officials were in communication with (a) the police or (b) any statutory or regulatory body, prior to December 1986, with respect to the business affairs of Mr. Anthony Wheeler and Mr. Richard Savill in respect of (a) the Wessex Trust, (b) Selective Investment Brokers and (c) any other companies of which they were directors; what information his officials received concerning any of those individuals or brokers; and what action was taken in respect of them, and on what dates.

  Mr. Maude
  Selective Investment Brokers was a trading name used as part of the operation of the Wessex Trust, an unincorporated body. It is not the same entity as Selective Investment Brokers Ltd.

  Before December 1986 my Department was in communication with the Director of Public Prosecutions about Wessex Trust and companies concerned in the affairs of the trust which included companies of which Mr. Wheeler was a director. It is not the practice to comment on the affairs of individual companies.

  Persons concerned with the Wessex Trust are at present subject to criminal proceedings brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

  Manufacturing Statistics
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish import figures and import penetration figures from 1973 to date for manufacturing industries at SIC two-digit level.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Data are available only for the years 1978 to 1987 inclusive. The information is given in the following tables:
  103

  Table B

  Import penetration ratio

  (Percentages)

  SIC class

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  21 Metalliferous ores extraction and preparation

  108

  111

  103

  102

  102

  101

  98

  100

  n/a

  n/a

  22 Metal manufacturing

  25

  27

  29

  25

  28

  31

  37

  39

  43

  42

  23 Extraction of minerals N.E.S.

  32

  35

  33

  32

  39

  42

  42

  43

  37

  36

  24 Non-metallic mineral products

  9

  10

  9

  9

  10

  11

  12

  13

  13

  16

  25 Chemical industry

  28

  29

  28

  30

  33

  35

  38

  40

  40

  41

  26 Man-made fibres

  41

  45

  56

  59

  67

  70

  68

  71

  68

  66

  31 Metal goods N.E.S.

  10

  10

  11

  11

  12

  13

  14

  16

  16

  18

  32 Mechanical engineering

  32

  29

  29

  32

  31

  32

  34

  36

  37

  38

  33 Office machinery and data processing equipment

  92

  92

  96

  96

  105

  106

  105

  100

  100

  93

  34 Electrical and electronic engineering

  31

  31

  31

  36

  39

  42

  44

  47

  47

  49

  35 Motor vehicles and their parts

  35

  41

  39

  42

  47

  52

  51

  50

  51

  48

  36 Other transport equipment

  41

  38

  38

  41

  39

  42

  51

  45

  45

  42

  37 Instrument engineering

  52

  53

  52

  58

  56

  55

  58

  57

  56

  58

  41–42 Food, drink and tobacco

  18

  18

  16

  16

  16

  17

  18

  18

  18

  18

  43 Textile industry

  31

  33

  34

  39

  39

  41

  44

  44

  45

  47

  44 Leather and leather goods

  34

  40

  40

  42

  42

  44

  44

  49

  46

  49

  45 Footwear and clothing industries

  26

  29

  29

  33

  33

  33

  36

  35

  36

  39

  46 Timber and wooden furniture

  27

  29

  27

  29

  29

  32

  32

  30

  31

  31

  47 Paper, printing and publishing

  19

  19

  19

  20

  19

  20

  21

  21

  21

  22

  48 Rubber and plastics processing

  18

  18

  18

  21

  22

  24

  25

  26

  27

  28

  49 Other manufacturing

  35

  36

  41

  48

  38

  38

  39

  38

  39

  46

  n/a—Not available.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish the export figures and export-sales ratios from 1973 to date for manufacturing industries at SIC two-digit level.

  Table A

  Exports at current prices

  (£ million)

  SIC Class

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  21 Metalliferous ores extraction and preparation

  67

  91

  39

  42

  41

  34

  36

  36

  73

  17

  22 Metal manufacturing

  2,104

  2,634

  3,135

  2,919

  2,893

  3,526

  3,766

  3,860

  3,953

  4,097

  23 Extraction of minerals N.E.S.

  818

  1,045

  1,288

  795

  888

  1,158

  1,356

  1,209

  1,554

  1,648

  24 Non-metallic mineral products

  636

  652

  731

  824

  838

  878

  985

  1,120

  1,127

  1,183

  25 Chemical industry

  3,969

  4,601

  5,104

  5,531

  6,077

  6,949

  8,273

  9,471

  9,617

  10,539

  26 Man-made fibres

  304

  361

  373

  305

  300

  376

  419

  435

  416

  422

  31 Metal goods N.E.S.

  859

  901

  996

  960

  1,006

  969

  1,093

  1,218

  1,180

  1,287

  32 Mechanical engineering

  5,792

  6,078

  6,924

  7,079

  7,372

  6,658

  7,493

  8,295

  8,385

  8,984

  33 Office machinery and data processing equipment

  770

  967

  1,095

  1,056

  1,332

  1,821

  2,787

  3,543

  3,344

  4,211

  34 Electrical and electronic engineering

  3,117

  3,170

  3,663

  3,942

  4,537

  5,004

  5,909

  7,025

  7,414

  7,993

  35 Motor vehicles and their parts

  3,048

  3,136

  3,230

  3,277

  3,212

  3,248

  3,563

  4,066

  4,076

  5003

  36 Other transport equipment

  1,640

  1,817

  2,422

  2,733

  3,213

  3,323

  3,745

  4,178

  4,642

  5,478

  37 Instrument engineering

  651

  753

  874

  918

  1,024

  1,013

  1,133

  1,194

  1,230

  1,346

  41/42 Food, drink and tobacco

  2,419

  2,480

  2,772

  2,929

  3,182

  3,489

  3,695

  4,058

  4,161

  4,741

  43 Textile industry

  1,250

  1,332

  1,382

  1,317

  1,321

  1,380

  1,621

  1,859

  1,855

  2,069

  44 Leather and leather goods

  128

  162

  141

  131

  150

  175

  232

  260

  273

  345

  45 Footwear and clothing industries

  735

  835

  872

  880

  848

  889

  1,041

  1,165

  1,210

  1,405

  46 Timber and wooden furniture

  279

  279

  292

  272

  293

  311

  358

  397

  380

  416

  47 Paper, printing and publishing

  783

  869

  965

  984

  1,065

  1,183

  1,465

  1,620

  1,704

  2,004

  48 Rubber and plastics processing

  849

  946

  1,137

  1,113

  1,117

  1,212

  1,369

  1,522

  1,646

  1,974

  49 Other manufacturing

  764

  1,010

  1,255

  954

  909

  1,018

  1,222

  1,051

  1,195

  1,303

  104
  Mr. Alan Clark
  Data are available only for the years 1978 to 1987 inclusive. The information is given in the following tables:
  105

  Table B

  Export sales ratio (percentages)

  SIC Class

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  21 Metalliferous ores extraction and preparation

  391

  556

  257

  163

  154

  145

  70

  95

  ‥

  ‥

  22 Metal manufacturing

  21

  22

  21

  22

  23

  25

  32

  34

  38

  41

  23 Extraction of minerals N.E.S.

  25

  29

  28

  28

  14

  13

  13

  13

  9

  12

  24 Non-metallic mineral products

  15

  14

  14

  13

  14

  14

  14

  15

  15

  17

  25 Chemical industry

  36

  35

  37

  39

  40

  41

  44

  47

  47

  46

  26 Man-made fibres

  49

  53

  67

  63

  69

  74

  72

  73

  68

  64

  31 Metal goods N.E.S.

  13

  12

  14

  14

  14

  12

  13

  14

  13

  13

  32 Mechanical engineering

  44

  42

  45

  47

  45

  40

  42

  43

  42

  42

  33 Office machinery and data processing equipment

  90

  90

  96

  94

  108

  110

  107

  100

  100

  91

  34 Electrical and electronic engineering

  37

  33

  34

  36

  38

  37

  39

  43

  43

  43

  35 Motor vehicles and their parts

  38

  36

  38

  41

  38

  37

  37

  37

  34

  34

  36 Other transport equipment

  45

  43

  42

  50

  53

  55

  63

  55

  59

  57

  37 Instrument engineering

  51

  53

  55

  59

  56

  51

  53

  50

  48

  52

  41–42 Food, drink and tobacco

  11

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  11

  11

  12

  43 Textile industry

  27

  27

  30

  30

  29

  28

  30

  31

  30

  32

  44 Leather and leather goods

  26

  29

  32

  30

  32

  33

  35

  38

  36

  40

  45 Footwear and clothing industries

  18

  18

  19

  20

  18

  18

  18

  19

  18

  21

  46 Timber and wooden furniture

  7

  6

  7

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  5

  5

  47 Paper, printing and publishing

  11

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  11

  11

  11

  48 Rubber and plastics processing

  21

  20

  23

  24

  22

  22

  22

  22

  21

  22

  49 Other manufacturing

  38

  36

  36

  38

  28

  28

  28

  28

  28

  34

  ‥= not available.

  ‥=n.a. Not available.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish manufacturing output figures in constant prices from 1973 to date at SIC two-digit level.

  Index of production (1985 = 100)

  SIC Class

  1973

  1974

  1975

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  21 Metalliferous ores extraction and preparation

  180

  136

  146

  145

  160

  127

  119

  70

  83

  84

  81

  99

  100

  88

  80

  76

  22 Metal manufacturing

  138

  126

  109

  115

  114

  114

  118

  91

  97

  94

  94

  93

  100

  101

  109

  122

  23 Extraction of minerals N.E.S.

  148

  138

  123

  118

  117

  110

  108

  95

  85

  99

  92

  98

  100

  101

  104

  109

  24 Non-metallic mineral products

  136

  127

  119

  117

  115

  116

  115

  104

  93

  93

  98

  101

  100

  102

  108

  119

  25 Chemical industry

  81

  86

  77

  87

  90

  91

  93

  84

  84

  85

  91

  97

  100

  102

  109

  114

  26 Man-made fibres

  226

  194

  175

  193

  172

  184

  176

  129

  109

  87

  101

  105

  100

  104

  110

  107

  31 Metal goods N.E.S.

  143

  138

  125

  126

  130

  125

  123

  101

  93

  94

  96

  104

  100

  99

  103

  110

  32 Mechanical engineering

  125

  133

  131

  125

  125

  122

  117

  108

  96

  98

  94

  96

  100

  97

  97

  106

  33 Office machinery and data processing equipment

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  34 Electrical and electronic engineering

  87

  90

  85

  84

  86

  89

  88

  85

  81

  84

  89

  97

  100

  102

  104

  111

  35 Motor vehicles and their parts

  158

  146

  132

  133

  144

  136

  133

  115

  95

  92

  96

  95

  100

  98

  105

  117

  36 Other transport equipment

  110

  112

  107

  103

  98

  103

  100

  108

  112

  109

  103

  100

  100

  104

  112

  108

  37 Instrument engineering

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  41–42 Food, drink and tobacco

  95

  94

  92

  95

  96

  98

  100

  99

  97

  99

  100

  101

  100

  101

  103

  106

  43 Textile industry

  152

  139

  128

  132

  133

  129

  124

  102

  94

  92

  94

  96

  100

  100

  105

  102

  44 Leather and leather goods

  157

  145

  148

  153

  147

  144

  125

  99

  92

  87

  97

  103

  100

  107

  109

  100

  45 Footwear and clothing industries

  101

  99

  99

  96

  101

  104

  106

  95

  88

  88

  91

  95

  100

  101

  102

  102

  46 Timber and wooden furniture

  137

  117

  115

  118

  110

  114

  116

  100

  90

  88

  96

  101

  100

  103

  112

  127

  47 Paper, printing and publishing

  111

  111

  96

  99

  103

  105

  109

  101

  96

  93

  93

  98

  100

  104

  114

  126

  48 Rubber and plastics processing

  97

  94

  86

  94

  99

  102

  104

  93

  85

  85

  92

  97

  100

  107

  120

  130

  49 Other manufacturing

  161

  158

  144

  152

  166

  167

  158

  126

  114

  106

  94

  99

  100

  101

  102

  113

  n.a. Not available.

  Waste Paper Imports
  Mr. Crowther
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has as to whether waste paper subsidised by Government funds, collected in the United States of America, is being imported into the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Atkins
  I understand that mandatory collection of waste paper and other recyclable materials is now in operation in several states of the United States of America. It is not possible separately to identify the volumes of waste paper obtained by this route and subsequently exported to the United Kingdom. However, there is
  106
  Mr. Atkins
  The information is in the following table:

  currently no evidence that imports of waste paper from the United States of America into the United Kingdom are having an adverse effect on our domestic market.

  Pittard Garnar plc
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to receive the report from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the proposed takeover of Pittard Garnar plc by(a) Strong and Fisher (Holdings) plc. and (b) Hilisdown Holdings plc.

  Mr. Maude
  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission submitted its separate reports on the respective proposed acquisition of Pittard Garnar plc, by Strong and Fisher
  107
  (Holdings) plc and Hillsdown Holdings plc to my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 10 March 1989.

  Companies Registration Office
  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, since computerisation of search facilities at Companies Registration Office(a) how many times the computers have gone down, (b) what is the average time the computers have been down and (c) what is the longest and shortest time the computers have been down.

  Mr. Maude
  The chief executive of Companies House tells me that, since the computerised search facilities were established on 19 September 1988, there have been four instances when the computer has gone down. However, other factors such as failure in data communications links have also, from time to time, resulted in the loss of the search service.

  Altogether there have been 35 incidents which have resulted in some or all of the search room computer terminals being inoperable. The average duration of each incident has been 49 minutes. The longest interruption, lasting 62 hours and caused by a simultaneous failure in a primary and standby communications link, affected only the terminals in the London search room. The shortest recorded incident lasted 10 minutes.

  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether there are any plans to provide back up computer facilities for when the Companies Registration Office computer search system goes down.

  Mr. Maude
  The chief executive attaches great importance to maximising the availability of computerised services and ways of reducing the risk of failure of all elements of the service are kept constantly under review. Currently, steps being taken to provide increased protection against computer failure include the installation of a second mainframe processor to provide back-up for the primary machine. Plans are also being prepared to enable the agency's computerised systems to be transferred to my Department's computer installation in Middlesex in the event of a major disaster at the agency's own computer installation.

  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the average delay before documents received at Companies Registration Office are available on microfiche; and what steps are being taken by the Companies Registration Office to reduce the delay.

  Mr. Maude
  The chief executive of Companies House tells me that the average delay for making documents available for public inspection on microfiche over the 51 weeks of 1988–89 to the 24 March has been 25 working days. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced on 23 March 1989 targets for Companies House including one for an improvement in the time taken to process documents to an average 18 working days during 1990–91. Under the new agency arrangements, it is for the chief executive to take steps to meet this target.

  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects the BAA shareholder register received by the Companies Registration Office on 30 September 1988, to be available for public inspection on microfiche.
  108
  Mr. Maude
  The chief executive tells me that this register was received by him in computer output microfilm form from which it was not possible to take good quality microfiche copies in the usual way. However, it has been available for inspection in Cardiff from 30 September. If a London searcher had wished to inspect it I understand that arrangements could have been made. The chief executive's staff has, as a result of the hon. Member's interest, been experimenting with a number of alternative ways of providing a copy to the London office and I am pleased to say that they have now found a technique that will enable them to do so. This shareholders register is now therefore available for inspection on request at the London search room.

  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much it costs to produce the average company microfiche at Companies Registration Office.

  Mr. Maude
  The chief executive of Companies House tells me that, on a memorandum trading account basis, the estimated average cost of producing a company record on microfiche in 1988–89 was £2·46.

  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what were the staffing levels at(a) Companies Registration Office, Cardiff and (b) Companies Registration Office, London, for the period 1979 to 1988.

  Mr. Maude
  The chief executive Companies House tells me that at 1 April each year the numbers of permanent staff in post were as follows:

  Cardiff

  London

  1979

  866·5

  224

  1980

  828·5

  204·5

  1981

  770·5

  213

  1982

  772

  196

  1983

  766

  193

  1984

  768·5

  181·5

  1985

  853

  180·5

  1986

  857

  181·5

  1987

  851·5

  189

  1988

  795

  178

  Company Documents
  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what charges are made by the United Kingdom and each EEC country to the public for inspecting documents relating to companies and what they obtain for their money.

  Mr. Maude
  The chief executive of Companies House tells me that, in Great Britain, a searcher receives for the £2·50 statutory inspection fee, a microfiche copy of the filmed contents of one company record held by the registrar. Historical documents not filmed may be inspected by arrangement at one of the search rooms within the same search fee.

  Under the provisions of the first council directive dated 9 March 1968, European Community member states are required to make available for inspection company information for a fee which does not exceed the administrative cost of providing it.

  The system of company searches throughout EC member states varies considerably and complete up-to-date information about all search facilities is not currently held. The chief executive has in hand a project to consider

  109
  closer working links with providers of company registration and search facilities throughout the European Community. Meantime, if the hon. Member has any particular point in mind, the chief executive would be pleased to consider what he might do to help.

  Unsecured Loans
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of the respondents to the Office of Fair Trading survey published last autumn understood unprompted that an unsecured loan could result in the loss of the borrower's home.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 23 March 1989]: The Office of Fair Trading, following the survey "Consumers' Use of Credit", has not published the proportion of respondents who, unprompted, understood that an unsecured loan could result in the loss of the borrower's home. However the survey did show that 44 per cent. of respondents claimed to have no idea of the difference between a secured loan and an unsecured loan.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster why he does not propose to include unsecured loans in regulations under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, requiring advertisements for loans to carry a health warning.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 23 March 1989]: Evidence suggests that many consumers do not understand the difference between a secured loan and an unsecured loan. The report of the review body on civil justice (Cm. 394), concluded that sales of property following the granting of a charging order very rarely took place. I do not believe therefore that there is any justification for extending a "health" warning to cover unsecured loans.

  Loans
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what proportion of loans secured against a second mortgage resulted in repossession of the borrower's home in the last year for which figures are available;

  (2) what proportion of unsecured loans resulted in repossession of the borrower's home in the last year for which figures are available;

  (3) how many charging orders for unsecured loans were issued in the last year for which figures are available.

  (a) Land authority for Wales

  Membership

  Salaries £

  Chairman:

  Mr. G. D. Inkin

  124,008

  Deputy Chairman:

  Mr. J. D. Allen CBE

  26,816

  Members:

  Mr. R. P. V. Rees

  34,790

  Mr. G. Jones

  Mr. R. F. Watkiss CBE

  Mr. W. Rhys Webb

  Mr. R. G. Owen

  Mr. A. Edmunds

  1 Based on 2·5 days per week.

  2 Based on 1 day per week.

  3 Based on 3 days per month.

  110
  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 23 March 1989]: The collection of statistics on court proceedings is a matter for the Lord Chancellor's Department, but I understand that information is not available in the form requested.

WALES

  House Grants
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what income level it is his policy to set as the figure below which a house owner will receive a 100 per cent. grant for renovations or repairs, and what percentage grant will be received by those with incomes over the threshold.

  Mr. Grist
  Our recent consultation paper on the test of resources proposed that households with weekly net incomes below a threshold figure would qualify for 100 per cent. assistance. Grant would be progressively reduced for households with incomes above the threshold.

  The test of resources we have proposed suggests that the threshold should be set at housing benefit level plus a premium of £20 per week. For those with incomes above that level we have proposed a sliding scale of grant entitlement determined by the cost of works and applicant's financial resources.

  Forestry Commission Holdings (Wales)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information his office holds on the location and extent of the Forestry Commission's holdings in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Information on the land managed by the Forestry Commission in Wales, set out by forest districts, is contained in table 16 of the commission's annual reports.

  Copies of these reports are in the Library of the House.

  Housing and Development Agencies
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the chairman and members of(a) the Land Authority for Wales, (b) Housing for Wales, (c) the Welsh Development Agency and (d) Cardiff Bay development corporation, together with their salaries and expenses.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The list of names and current salaries is given in the table. Expenses are paid in accordance with Treasury guidelines on payments to members of public bodies.
  111

  (b) Housing for Wales

  Membership

  Salaries £

  Chairman:

  Mr. J. Allen CBE

  122,135

  Deputy Chairman:

  Mr. J. Evans

  26,851

  Members:

  Mr. G. Lloyd

  33,000

  Professor P. Williams

  Mr. J. Proctor

  Mrs. A. Mainwaring

  Mr. A. E. Peat

  4—

  1 Based on 2·5 days per week.

  2 Based on 1 day per week.

  3 Based on 2 days per month.

  4 Salary paid as Chief Executive.

  (c) Welsh Development Agency

  Members

  Salaries £

  Chairman:

  Dr. Gwyn Jones

  132,990

  Deputy Chairman:

  Sir Donald Walters

  217,046

  Members:

  Mr. David Waterstone

  4—

  Cllr. E. Glyn Davies

  5—

  Mr. Idwal Symonds JP

  34,825

  Mr. Colin Ivor Cooke

  Mr. Ralph Phillip Vinon Rees

  Mr. David Griffiths Roberts OBE

  Mr. David Claude Neville Cole CBE

  Mr.B.Hugh R.Hudson-Davies

  Mr. John Foley MBE

  1 Based on 2·5 days per week.

  2 Based on 2 days per week.

  3 Based on 2 days per month.

  4 Salary paid as Chief Executive of Agency.

  5 As Chairman of Development Board of Rural Wales receives no emoluments in his capacitv as an ex officio board member of the Agency.

  (d) Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  Members

  Salaries £

  Chairman:

  Geoffrey Inkin OBE

  124,290

  Deputy Chairman:

  Cllr. Lord Brooks of Tremorfa

  213,702

  Members:

  Mrs. Mair Barnes

  33,866

  Mrs. Honor Chapman

  Cllor. Percy Chappel

  Mr. Alan Cox CBE

  Sir Alex Gordon

  Mr. B. Hugh R. Hudson-Davies

  Cllr. Paddy Kitson

  Mr. Patrick de Pelet

  Cllr. John Reynolds

  Cllr. Ron Watkiss

  1 Based on 2·5 days per week.

  2 Based on 2 days per week.

  3 Based on 0·5 day per week.

  Cefn Coed Hospital (Psychiatric Unit)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when a medium-secure psychiatic unit at Cefn Coed hospital, Swansea will be established in the light of the undertaking given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary on 25 April 1988,Official Report, column 1.

  Mr. Grist
  The provision of a medium secure psychiatric service for south-west Wales is under consideration by the Welsh Office in the light of the comments of the three health authorities most concerned.

  Housing for Wales
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has appointed any members of Housing for Wales who possess a local government background.

  Mr. Grist
  No.

  Computer Consultants
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total amount spent by his Department in
  113
  1988 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by his Department in 1988, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The total amount spent on management and computer consultancies in 1988 was £195,280. Details of those consultancies awarded in that year are as follows:

  Firm

  Subject of assignment

  BIS Ltd.

  To assist with the performance of the Department's mainframe computer.

  HMSO

  To review the layout of the Department's reprographic unit.

  Ernst and Whinney Ltd.

  To advise on the implementation of the Department's computerised financial systems.

  Frank Griffiths Associates

  Review of purchasing

  Touche Ross

  Review of the NHS directorate

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total amount spent by the Welsh Development Agency in 1988 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by the Welsh Development Agency in 1988, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Welsh Development Agency has spent £99,000 on the following consultancy contracts:

  Company

  Assignment

  Grant Thornton

  Evaluation and testing of new computer systems

  Ernst Whinney

  Documentation for users of new computer systems and advice on implementing new systems

  P. Sullivan

  Development of integrated data bases from existing computer systems

  Touche Ross

  Corporate planning advice

  Numbers Research Ltd.

  Monitoring effectiveness of agency marketing campaign outside of Wales

  Henry Zarb of Holder &Co.

  Beaufort Research Ltd.

  Monitoring effectiveness of agency marketing campaign within Wales

  Taylor Nelson Research

  Monitoring effectiveness of agency food initiative marketing campaign

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  (a) Welsh Office direct funding of voluntary organisations

  231,043

  413,938

  601,796

  465,335

  260,110

  140,231

  (b) Total Welsh Office payment under the mental handicap strategy

  0·75 million

  2·41 million

  4·02 million

  6·88 million

  10·06 million

  113·80 million

  Proportion of (a) to (b)

  28·4 per cent.

  17·2 per cent.

  15·0 per cent.

  6·8 per cent.

  2·6 per cent.

  1·0 per cent.

  1 Provisional.

  The declining proportion of direct central funding reflects the development of effective county planning, which provides the basis for the social services and health authorities to support directly relevant voluntary sector activity.

  Tree Preservation Orders
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many tree preservation orders have been made in each county of Wales(a) for individual trees and (b) for groups of trees or woods; and what area is covered by the latter case.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Local planning authorities are responsible for making and confirming tree preservation orders and the information requested is not held centrally.

  All-Wales Strategy
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is the number and designation of staff employed through all-Wales strategy funding in Clwyd since the inception of the strategy, on a year-by-year basis;

  (2) how much all-Wales strategy funding Clwyd county council has allocated to its education service.

  Mr. Grist
  The responsibility for planning and developing services under the all-Wales mental handicap strategy lies with county joint planning teams. These teams consist of representatives of local and health authorities, voluntary organisations and representatives of service users in each county, and are coordinated by local authority social services departments. In addition to the resources of the local and health authorities, special Welsh Office grants are made available to counties to assist in the development of new patterns of services. Detailed information on individual services, including staffing, in Clwyd is available from the county council.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what voluntary sector initiatives are funded by the all-Wales strategy county by county; and what percentage of the counties allocations this represents on a year-by-year basis.

  Mr. Grist
  The allocation of funds under the all-Wales mental handicap strategy for the voluntary sector within each county is primarily a matter for the social services and health authorities, and detailed information is not held centrally. The Department funds directly a limited number of voluntary bodies for them to provide or pilot services relevant to more that one county area. Information in respect of these is as follows:

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what, at the latest available date, was the average selling price before discount of a local authority unit of accommodation; and what is the average cost of building a new local authority unit of accommodation.
  115
  Mr. Grist
  The average selling price before discount of local authority dwellings sold during 1988 was £20,115. The average cost of building a new local authority unit of accommodation during the same period is estimated to have been £35,450.

  Water Standards
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will provide details of the Welsh water authority's funding allocated to improvements in standards of(a) drinking water quality, (b) sewage treatment and disposal and (c) bathing water quality through its existing capital programme for each of the next 10 years;

  (2) what percentage of the projected necessary funding for improvements in standards of (a) drinking water quality, (b) sewage treatment and disposal and (c) bathing water quality is contained within the existing capital programme of the Welsh water authority.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested by the hon. Gentleman is not available.

ENERGY

  Nuclear Power (Report)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his reply of 13 February,Official Report, column 40, what analysis has been made of the report, "Greenhouse Warming: A Rationale for Nuclear Power"; what action he proposes to take as a result; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The paper "Greenhouse Warming: Comparative Analysis of Two Abatement Strategies" has been examined by my Department. The paper is United States oriented. The scope for cost-effective energy efficiency measures and the means by which they might be implemented are not sufficiently addressed.

  Nuclear power has a positive role to play in helping to curtail future CO2 emissions, but is not going to solve the threat of global warming on its own. Cost-effective energy efficiency measures will also have an important role and the Energy Efficiency Office will continue to promote them vigorously.

  Computer Consultants
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the total amount spent by his Department in 1988 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by his Department in 1988, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment.

  Mr. Parkinson
  My Department spent £217,000 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases, in the financial year 1988–89.

  Contracts placed with private sector firms and companies for management or computer consultancies during 1988 were:
  116

  Consultants

  Subject

  Price Waterhouse

  Offshore supplies office: computerisation project

  Dataserv

  Computerisation of petroleum licence records

  BIS

  Cabling design for new HQ building

  Price Waterhouse

  Feasibility Study of computerisation of offshore drilling applications and approvals

  IML

  Assistance in setting up computer system for technical investigation into Piper Alpha disaster

  Price Waterhouse

  Reporting instructions for United Kingdom oil and gas production statistics

  Data Solve Ltd.

  Computer training

  Stuart McKechnie Ltd.

  Management training

  Training and Development Approaches Ltd.

  Advice on management training and appraisal

  Kleinwort Benson

  Financial advice including computer modelling

  Russell Reynolds

  Recruitment consultants for chairman of North Eastern electricity board

  Security Firms
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his policy towards his Department's involvement with private security firms.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The policy of my Department is to use the services of private security firms where it is to the public advantage to do so, within the limits set by Government policy and after consulting other Departments as appropriate.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Parent Governors
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools have set up governing bodies containing elected parent governors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  A recent survey for the Department suggests that about 99 per cent. of parent-governor places at county and maintained special schools have been filled, almost all of these through election or nomination. This is a tremendous achievement.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will estimate at what date the Government will recover its spending outlay on the student loans scheme proposed in the White Paper "Top-up Loans for Students".

  Mr. Jackson
  On the basis of the assumptions outlined in annex E of the White Paper and measured in terms of the cumulative net PSBR effect, the spending outlay will be recovered by 2013. If the cost of the access funds are included, the outlay will be recovered by 2015.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the number of representations he has received for and against the Government's students loan plans.
  117
  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend on 22 March 1989 to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) at column 605.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what effect his proposals laid down in "Top-Up Loans for Students" (Cm. 520) will have in relation to(a) nursing students pursuing degree courses in nursing in colleges of higher education and (b) nursing students pursuing nursing education courses under the Project 2000 proposals, in receipt of a bursary; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The precise arrangements for bursaries for student nurses have not yet been decided.

  Education Statistics
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what analysis he has carried out of the 10 local education authorities with the lowest record of (i) examination results and (ii) expenditure per pupil.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Three of the 10 highest spending authorities in 1986–87 were among the 10 authorities with the lowest proportions of school leavers achieving five or more higher grades. None of the 10 lowest spending authorities were in this category.

  Drugs
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for Government funding of drugs education coordinators.

  Mr. Butcher
  Drugs education coordinators are employed by local education authorities; they have been funded jointly by LEAs and the DES since 1986 under the education support grants programme. Consideration is currently being given to the nature of the ESG programme in 1990–91. A decision on this will be announced shortly.

  Japanese Language Training
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of state for Education and Science what progress is being made in expanding the demand for the network of language export training centres' Japanese services; and what other steps he is taking to enhance Japanese language training for exporters.

  Mr. Jackson
  The network of language export centres is planning to produce an audio briefing package which will enhance its Japanese services. The package will include Japanese language training as well as advice on business practice in Japan. It will be aimed at businesses wishing to penetrate the Japanese market and should be available from all the centres in the early summer.

  Classroom Behaviour
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps his Department is taking to assist schools in securing a more orderly atmosphere in the classroom.

  Mr. Butcher
  My Department is currently taking action on a number of key recommendations made in the recent report from the committee of inquiry into discipline in 118
  schools. This includes measures to improve teacher training; financial support for projects to tackle the problems of difficult pupils and truancy; and close monitoring of the procedures for excluding pupils from school. Fuller details were given to the House on 13 March by my right hon. Friend.

  Grant Maintained Schools
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the number of schools which have so far applied for grant-maintained status; and what action he intends to take to encourage further applications.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  A total of 22 schools have so far published statutory proposals to become grant-maintained; many more are on the way. My right hon. Friend will continue to do all he can to encourage the development of a healthy grant-maintained sector and greater choice for parents.

  Schools Outreach Programme
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the funding of the schools outreach programme.

  Mr. Butcher
  My right hon. Friend has offered funding for a three-year pilot project to be conducted by schools outreach. This is dependent upon funding also being provided by a local education authority. In the long term, funding for schools outreach must be a matter for local determination.

  Student Loans
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has received any representations from banking institutions in the last month in regard to the proposed introduction of student loans; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Yes. Constructive discussions are being held with a range of financial institutions about their possible participation in the administration of top-up loans.

  Parent Governors
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the latest figures for the number of parents who have become school governors.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind).

  Essex Education Committee
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met the chairman of Essex county council education committee; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Butcher
  My right hon. Friend last met the chairman of the Essex county council education committee on official business at the golden jubilee celebrations of St. Helena school on 28 January 1988.

  Engineering (A-level Syllabus)
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has as to how many examination boards provide an A-level examination syllabus for engineering.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I understand that seven of the eight GCE examining boards offer A-level syllabuses in engineering subjects.

  Capital Allocations
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local education authorities have made representations to his Department since the 1989–90 capital allocations were announced.

  Mr. Butcher
  A total of 17 local education authorities have made representations about their 1989–90 capital allocations. Four of these relate to the allocations for voluntary aided and special agreement schools only.

  Lecturers (Dispute)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what provisions are being made for Liverpool students whose exams are in danger because of the Association of University Teachers' dispute.

  Mr. Jackson
  That is a matter for the authorities at the university.

  Lecturers (Pay and Conditions)
  Mr. David Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about university lecturers' pay and conditions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has received representations from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the Association of University Teachers seeking additional funding for pay increases for university staff. He has also had many letters both about salary levels in universities and in criticism of the boycott of examination work by lecturers.

  Student Maintenance
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give figures for total Government spending on student maintenance for each of the last 10 years in(a) cash terms and (b) in real terms, indexed so that 1979–80 = 100.

  Mr. Jackson
  Expenditure on the maintenance element of mandatory awards has been as follows:

  Academic year

  (a) Expendilure in cash terms £m

  (b) Expenditure in real terms £m (1979–80 prices)

  1979–80

  332

  332

  1980–81

  398

  349

  1981–82

  443

  355

  1982–83

  472

  359

  1983–84

  502

  362

  1984–85

  480

  332

  120

  Academic year

  (a) Expenditure in cash terms £m

  (b) Expenditure in real terms £m (1979–80 prices)

  1985–86

  458

  302

  1986–87

  480

  302

  1987–881

  497

  295

  1988–891

  523

  292

  1 Estimated.

  Polytechnics and Colleges
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1), pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Oxford, East,Official Report, 15 March, column 219, if he will list the separate figures for the total capital allocations from the advanced further education pool and capital expenditure by local authorities on polytechnics and colleges in each year since 1979–80 (a) in cash terms and (b) indexed in real terms with 1979–80 = 100;

  (2) pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Oxford East, Official Report, 15 March, column 220, if he will list capital expenditure (a) funded by the University Grants Committee, and (b) the same figures for capital expenditure on polytechnics and other colleges for each of the last 10 years in cash terms, as well as indexed in real terms with 1979–80 = 100.

  Mr. Jackson
  The following information takes account of the gross domestic product deflator updated as at 15 March and also corrects an error in the earlier answer, for which I apologise, in the index for polytechnics and colleges in 1987–88.

  Capital Expenditure on Financial years

  Universities (Great Britain)

  Polytechnics and other Colleges (England)

  £ million

  Index

  £ million

  Index

  1979–80

  87·8

  100

  78·0

  100

  1980–81

  97·9

  94

  100·7

  109

  1981–82

  103·1

  90

  99·9

  98

  1982–83

  106·8

  87

  125·5

  115

  1983–84

  103·1

  81

  125·5

  110

  1984·85

  106·7

  79

  137·4

  115

  1985–86

  118·2

  83

  145·5

  116

  1986–87

  130·2

  89

  159·5

  123

  1987–88

  128·8

  84

  1124·9

  191

  1988–89

  140·1

  85

  n/a

  n/a

  1 Estimated.

  n/a Not available.

  The figures for polytechnics and colleges are gross capital expenditure on all further and higher education by local authorities as returned by them together with capital grants to voluntary and direct grant colleges. The advanced further education pool is for recurrent expenditure only. There is a separate pool for elements of capital-related expenditure on AFE as laid down by regulations.

  Teacher Conversion Courses
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science for what reasons the allocation of funds to the University Grants Committee and National Advisory Board for teacher conversion courses has been discontinued.
  121
  Mrs. Rumbold
  The allocation of funds has not been discontinued.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many places were allocated for teacher conversion courses in 1987–88 and 1988–89; and how many of these places were taken up.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  This information is not available.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he or Ministers in his Department have held a meeting of the trustees of the grant-maintained schools trust.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Neither I nor my Ministerial colleagues have held any such meeting. From time to time my right hon. Friend and I have had discussions with the chairman and director of the grant-maintained schools trust.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he first learnt that the grant-maintained schools trust had described itself in its literature as a registered charity; and if his Department took any action to point out the error.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The point was brought to my right hon. Friend's attention some weeks after the issue of the document, when he was also informed that the grant-maintained schools trust was itself taking steps to correct the error.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will seek to amend the education support grant guidelines governing information technology in schools to permit local education authorities freedom to purchase information technology equipment of their choice without restriction on the country of origin of the manufacturers.

  Mr. Butcher
  The guidelines contain no such restriction.

  Badgers
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what research his Department is currently funding into the development of a vaccine against bovine tuberculosis in badgers.

  Mr. Jackson
  This Department is not currently funding any such research.

  Child Sexual Abuse
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what Government-funded research by the Economic and Social Research Council into the sexual abuse of children(a) has taken place since 1979, (b) is currently taking place and (c) is under consideration, giving the cost of each project listed.
  122
  Mr. Jackson
  Since 1979 the Economic and Social Research Council has provided funds from its grant-in-aid in support of the following research projects relating to child sexual abuse:1 January 1982 to 31 December 1983: £23,130 for a project entitled "The Social Sensitivity of Abused Children and Their Mothers", under the direction of Dr. C. E. Davies and Miss R. M. Calam, department of psychology, Manchester university.
  1 April 1985 to 31 March 1987: £11,620 for a project entitled "A Social Anthropological Study of Cases of Child Sex Abuse in Britain", under the direction of Professor J. S. La fontaine, institute of child health, London university.
  1 December 1988 to 30 November 1990: £49,490 for a project entitled "Child Sex Abuse", under the direction of Dr. N. G. Fielding and Ms. J. Tunstall, department of sociology, university of Surrey. [In progress].
  1 January 1989 to 31 December 1990: £44,842 for a project entitled "The Effect of Social Worker/Family Relationships on Child Abuse Case Outcomes", under the direction of Dr. T. K. Pitcairn, department of social policy and social work, Edinburgh university. [in progress].

  A further grant of £43,000 has recently been awarded to Dr. L. Kelly, polytechnic of north London, for a 20-month project to begin later this year, entitled "The Prevalence of Child Abuse in the UK". The council is giving consideration to the possibility of a new research initiative in this area.

  Teachers (Statistics)
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many teachers are employed in schools in the state sector; and if he will break the figures down according to age and sex.

  Mr. Butcher
  The total number of teachers and instructors employed in the maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools sector in England in January 1988 (the latest date for which figues are available) was 425·5 thousand, including those employed part-time or on an occasional basis. Their total full-time equivalent was 401·5 thousand.

  More detailed information by age and sex on the breakdown of teachers is available only in relation to qualified teachers in full-time regular service and at an earlier date (March 1986). The figures (in thousands) are:

  Men

  Women

  Men and women

  Under 30

  17·0

  41·8

  58·7

  30–34

  27·9

  35·6

  63·5

  35–39

  37·3

  39·6

  76·9

  40–44

  23·7

  33·5

  57·2

  45–49

  18·4

  32·9

  51·3

  50–54

  14·0

  26·8

  40·8

  55 or over

  11·7

  16·8

  28·6

  All ages

  150·0

  226·9

  376·9

  Computer Consultants
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total amount spent by his Department in 1988 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each management or

  Consultant

  Assignment

  Logica Ltd.

  Technical study in connection with the Department's education information strategy

  Logica Ltd.

  Review of teacher information needs

  Peat, Marwick McLintock

  Study of requirements for an integrated vote and management accounting system

  CMG

  Specification of needs for the Departments core resource information system

  BIS Applied Systems

  Communications strategy for HMI

  FI Group

  Study of ORACLE implementation

  Ernst Whinney

  Management system for HMI travelling and subsistence

  ITS Ltd.

  Training review

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Study of holding board models for the ABRC

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Management framework for the control of information systems projects

  Deloitte Haskins and Sells

  Advice on computer accounting systems for the Department

  Deloitte Haskins and Sells

  Financial management advice and assistance to the University Grants Committee (UGC)

  Loughborough Consultants Ltd.

  Research selectivity project for the UGC

  City University

  Financial services for the UGC

  Royal Society

  Analysis of the earth science review for the UGC

  Over-16s
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for. Education and Science what percentage of young persons in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Durham continue in formal education beyond their 16th year.

  Participation in education, 1986–87

  Percentage of population

  Age 16

  Age 17

  full-time

  part-time day

  full-time

  part-time day

  United Kingdom1

  50

  15

  32

  12

  Durham2

  39

  15

  26

  14

  1 Home students only.

  2 Excludes independent schools and private further education establishments.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of young persons in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Durham attend full-time higher education.

  Mr. Jackson
  The available data are listed below. The percentages are based on the numbers of students in 1986–87 who received a new full-value award from an LEA. Comparable figures are not available for the United Kingdom.

  New full-value awards1 to students as a percentage2 of 18 to 19-year-old population: 1986–87

  Per cent.

  Durham LEA

  14·9

  English and Welsh LEAs

  21·3

  124
  computer consultancy contract awarded by his Department in 1988, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment.

  Mr. Butcher
  This Department spent £438,127 on computer and management consultancies in 1988. Contracts awarded in that year were as follows:

  Mr. Jackson
  The available information is given in the table.

  1 Includes awards made to students attending universities, polytechnics and other colleges.

  2 The percentage is based on the number of new award holders as a proportion of the relevant single year age group; this was calculated by adding half of all l8-year-olds to half of all l9-year-olds.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to encourage more students to enter full-time higher education.

  Mr. Jackson
  We already have record participation in all forms of higher education. The Government's policies for better schools and greater flexibility in further and higher education will build on this, helping to offset the effects of the substantial decline in the young entrant age group.

  Students and Academic Staff
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how many full-time students, undergraduates and post-graduates there were at universities studying(a) arts, (b) business, (c) science and (d) engineering for the years 1975, 1980, 1985 and 1988;

  (2) how many full-time academic staff were employed by universities for art, business, science and engineering for the years 1975, 1980, 1985 and 1988.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information is shown in the table:

  Full-time equivalent student load and full-time academic staff, in universities

  Great Britain

  Academic year beginning in

  19751 2

  19801

  1985

  19873

  Full-time equivalent student load

  Total of which

  272,865

  311,985

  307,741

  318,496

  Arts

  128,897

  146,367

  129,669

  135,569

  Business

  6,051

  7,720

  14,237

  15,715

  Science

  91,376

  102,224

  106,110

  108,083

  Engineering

  28,072

  34,267

  35,949

  37,379

  Other5

  18,469

  21,407

  21,776

  21,750

  Full-time academic staff4

  Total of which

  31,094

  42,478

  43,435

  45,348

  Arts

  12,199

  14,620

  12,702

  12,633

  Business

  576

  852

  1,275

  1,395

  Science

  11,495

  15,964

  16,642

  17,447

  Engineering

  3,480

  5,042

  5,731

  6,058

  Other5

  3,344

  6,000

  7,085

  7,815

  1 Information for 1975 and 1980 is based on subject group of academic department that for later years is based on cost centres.

  2 Information for academic staff in 1975 are full-time staff paid directly from university funds.

  3 Provisional.

  4 Excluding a small number of staff in adult education departments, libraries and museums. In 1987–88 these numbered 530.

  5 Clinical medicine, dentistry and veterinary science.

  Licensed Teachers
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will make a statement on his policy on providing financial support to local education authorities in(a) 1989–90 and (b) 1990–91 in connection with his proposals to introduce licensed teachers; whether he has yet held any discussions about financial support arrangements for these proposals; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will describe the expenditure consequences of his present proposals to introduce licensed teachers, including an illustrative cost of training for one such teacher; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The cost of providing training for licensed teachers will vary considerably according to the previous experience and training needs of the individual concerned. The costs of such training will be eligible for support under the local education authority training grants scheme.

  Pensions (Abatement Provisions)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his answer to the hon.126
  Member for Bridgend of 15 March, Official Report, column 223, what was the total number of notifications from teachers received by the Paymaster General's Office in the year ended 31 March 1988 concerning re-employment after retirement; in what circumstances individual cases among this total number were considered under the abatement provisions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  The Paymaster General's Office does not keep the detailed information requested but I understand that inquiries are received from some 2,000 teachers each year about re-employment after retirement. Individual cases are considered under the abatement provisions when the employment is of the kind to which the abatement provisions can apply and the income from it approaches the earnings margin.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Bridgend of 15 March,Official Report, column 223, whether the current review of the policy of abatement is taking account of the problems of teacher shortages identified by his Department; when he expects this review to reach a conclusion in relation to teachers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  The review will take account of factors relating to recruitment and retention in all of the main public services including education. The review is expected to be completed this summer.

  Voluntary Youth Workers
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will reinstate eligibility for voluntary youth workers under the local authority training grant scheme.

  Mr. Butcher
  The eligibility of these workers is under review.

  London Residuary Body
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from the London residuary body in respect of the draft Education (Reorganisation in Inner London) (Compensation) Regulations 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Letters have been received from the chairman of the board of the London residuary body and from the LRB's director of personnel. These acknowledge that the terms proposed under the draft regulations are very similar to those available under the Local Government Reorganisation (Compensation) Regulations 1986, but make a number of suggestions for the most part reflecting the experience of the board in operating the 1986 regulations.

DEFENCE

  Military Equipment (Export)
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provision is made by his Department for measuring and regulating the export of military equipment from the
  127
  United Kingdom through collaborative projects; what provision is made for measuring and regulating the re-export of this equipment to third countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Exports from the United Kingdom of goods controlled under the Exports of Goods (Control) Order 1987, as amended, are subject to export licensing in accordance with procedures operated by the Department of Trade and Industry.

  There are no special provisions for collaborative projects; the same export requirements and procedures apply to them as to any other export of defence equipment.

  In general, the export or re-export of collaborative equipment to third countries calls for the agreement of all the collaborative partners although each project has its own memorandum of understanding and procedures differ slightly between them.

  Headquarters Contracts
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list in the Official Report the precise amounts paid to each of the 10 contractors which received the largest shares of headquarters contracts awarded by his Department in each of the five years to 31 March 1988.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The 10 contractors receiving the most payment in respect of headquarters contracts in the five years to 31 March 1988 were as follows:

  £ million

  1983–84

  1. The General Electric Co plc

  690

  2. British Aerospace plc (Dynamics)

  615

  3. Rolls Royce Ltd

  485

  4. British Shipbuilders

  400

  5. The Plessey Co plc

  365

  6. Royal Ordnance Factories

  340

  7. British Aerospace plc (Aircraft)

  340

  8. Ferranti plc

  180

  9. The British Petroleum Co plc

  170

  10. Westland plc

  155

  1984–85

  1. The General Electric Co plc

  805

  2. British Aerospace plc (Dynamics)

  685

  3. British Shipbuilders

  535

  4. The Plessey Co plc

  415

  5. Royal Ordnance plc

  410

  6. Rolls Royce Ltd

  410

  7. British Aerospace plc (Aircraft)

  320

  8. Ferranti plc

  215

  9. Esso UK plc

  205

  10. British Petroleum Co plc

  175

  1985–86

  1. The General Electric Co plc

  800

  2. British Aerospace plc (Dynamics)

  715

  3. British Shipbuilders

  590

  4. The Plessey Co plc

  440

  5. Rolls Royce Ltd

  435

  6. Royal Ordnance plc

  370

  7. British Aerospace plc (Aircraft)

  300

  8. Ferranti plc

  225

  9. Westland plc

  180

  10. Hunting Associated Industries plc

  160

  1986–87

  1. The General Electric Co plc

  850

  2. British Aerospace plc (Dynamics)

  610

  3. Rolls Royce Ltd

  425

  4. The Plessey Co plc

  365

  5. Vickers Shipbuilders and Engineering

  345

  6. British Aerospace plc (Aircraft)

  320

  128

  £ million

  7. Royal Ordnance plc

  245

  8. Hunting Associated Industries plc

  205

  9. Ferranti plc

  200

  10. Thorn EMI plc

  155

  1987–88

  1. The General Electric Co plc

  1,035

  2. British Aerospace plc (Dynamics)

  545

  3. Vickers Shipbuilders and Engineering Ltd

  465

  4. Rolls Royce plc

  420

  5. British Aerospace plc (Aircraft)

  330

  6. The Plessey Co plc

  305

  7. Royal Ordnance plc

  225

  8. Devonport Management Ltd

  225

  9. Ferranti plc

  200

  10. Hunting Associated Industries plc

  195

  Contractors
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list in the Official Report the precise amounts paid to each of the following contractors by his Department in the year ended 31 March 1988: (a) J. S. Chinn & Co. Ltd., (b) Abbey Panels Ltd., (c) Self Changing Gears Ltd., (d) Noel Penny Turbines Ltd.(e) National Plastics Ltd., (f) Commercial Hydraulics Keelavite Ltd., (g) Coventry Motor & Sundries Ltd. and (h) Armstrong Equipment plc.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The payments made to each of these companies in the year ended 31 March 1988 in respect of headquarters contracts were as follows:

  1987

  £ million

  J. S. Chinn & Co. Ltd.

  0·06

  Self Changing Gears Ltd.

  0·40

  Noel Penny Turbines Ltd.

  0·04

  National Plastics Ltd.

  5·71

  Commercial Hydraulics Keelavite

  2·03

  Coventry Motor & Sundries Ltd.

  0·16

  We have no record of any headquarters contracts having been placed with either Abbey Panels Ltd. or Armstrong Equipment plc.

  Missiles
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the current purchase costs of(a) one Exocet MM38 missile and (b) one Trident 2D5 missile.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is no longer our practice to publish unit production costs for equipment purchased by the Ministry of Defence.

  Submarines
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what claims for damages caused to boats by submarines are currently being considered; what total sum is involved; and what sums have been paid for damages in each year since 1979 and for the current year to date.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence deals on a legal liability basis with claims for compensation arising from incidents involving Royal Navy submarines. In each of the last 10 years, the following sums have been paid out as compensation:
  129

  Year

  £

  1979

  750

  1980

  Nil

  1981

  Nil

  1982

  Nil

  1983

  2,800

  1984

  157,850

  1985

  236,100

  1986

  15,000

  1987

  100,400

  1988

  Nil

  Four claims are currently being considered, the details of which are regarded as private between the claimants and the Department.

  Vehicles
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the current purchase costs of(a) one FV432 armoured personnel carrier and(b) one FV18067 ambulance (Rover 75 tonne).

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is no longer our practice to publish unit production costs. No recent purchases have, however, been made of either of these vehicles.

  Multiple-launch Rocket System
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the current purchase cost of one M270 multiple-launch rocket system.

  Management consultancy contracts

  Firm

  Subject of assignment

  Arthur Anderson & Co

  Support to the RAF TOPMIS Team

  W. S. Atkins & Partners

  Support to the PE TOPMIS Team

  W. S. Atkins & Partners

  Assistance for the Defence Works Planning Team

  Charles Barker plc

  Implementation of the Internal Communications Strategy for DGA(N)

  Deloitte Haskins & Sells

  Study into Spares Procurement

  Deloitte Haskins & Sells

  Study into Spares Procurement

  Deloitte Haskins & Sells

  Support to the Army TOPMIS Team

  Deloitte Haskins & Sells

  Follow on Study into Initial Provisioning

  P. A. Consulting Services Ltd

  Study into the Long Term Support for Tri Star

  P. A. Consulting Services Ltd

  Study into the Management and Control of Consumable Air Stores

  Peat Marwick McLintock

  Study into the RN Representational Task

  Peat Marwick McLintock

  Support to the Navy TOPMIS Team

  Peat Marwick McLintock

  Study into Ethnic Minority Recruitment to the Armed Forces

  P. E. Consulting Services Ltd

  Support to the PE TOPMIS Team

  Touche Ross & Company

  Assistance with Financial Management in the DGA(N) Area

  Touche Ross & Company

  Assistance with Next Steps and the Meteorological Office

  Touche Ross & Company

  Assistance to the British Forces Germany Financial Scrutiny

  Harold Whitehead & Partners

  Review of Productivity Scheme

  Harold Whitehead & Partners

  Review of Productivity Scheme

  Arthur Young

  Study into EX Works Transport

  130
  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is no longer our practice to publish unit production costs for equipment purchased by the Ministry of Defence.

  Computer Consultants
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total amount spent by his Department in 1988 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by his Department in 1988, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Ministry of Defence is estimated to spend £8·5 million in the financial year 1988–89 on management and computer consultancy contracts. Details of the management consultancy contracts are listed. Contractual responsibility for computer consultancy contracts has been transferred from the Ministry of Defence to the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency. CCTA does not currently maintain separate details of consultancy contracts, which, in many cases, form part of wider computer procurement and support contracts. Details of individual contracts could therefore be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  United States Competitive Strategies Doctrine
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his United States counterparts regarding the new United States competitive strategies doctrine.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has not recently discussed the subject of competitive strategies with his US counterparts.

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer to the Member for Brent, East of 7 March,Official Report, column 517 (a) which private security firms have been used by his Department, (b) where they have been deployed and (c) at what cost to his Department in each year from 1979 to the current date.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The following private companies have been employed by the Department to provide security guarding services:

  Airwork Ltd

  Burns International Security Services (UK) Ltd

  Care Security Services Ltd.

  Centuryan Security Ltd

  Chubb Wardens Ltd

  Custodian Security Guards Ltd

  Medway (Chatham) Dock Co Ltd

  Shorrock Guards Ltd (Formerly Pritchard Security Services Ltd)

  RCO Contract Services Ltd

  Reliance Security Services Ltd

  Royal British Legion Attendants Co Ltd

  Securiguard Services Ltd

  Securi-Guard (SW)

  Securicor Ltd

  SERCO Ltd

  Thorn EMI Electronics Ltd

  UK Security Ltd

  These firms have been employed at more than 30 establishments but it would not be in the interests of security to reveal their locations.

  In addition, I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes) on 23 March at column 761.

  Northern Ireland (Border Crossings)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Brent, East of 10 January,Official Report, column 541, how many service personnel have (a) breached regulations governing off-duty soldiers crossing into the Republic of Ireland and (b) been dealt with by the service authorities, in each year from 1972 to the current date.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information is not available in the form requested, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Contractors
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Brent, East of 1 February,Official Report, column 244, how the prior agreement of his Department is sought by contractors wishing to employ persons with access to classified information.
  132
  Mr. Sainsbury
  It would not be appropriate to give details.

  Economic League
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Brent, East of 1 February,Official Report, column 244, whether any speakers have been provided by the Economic League for training courses for military personnel in each year from 1979 to the current date.

  Mr. Neubert
  No record of guest speakers is held centrally and there is no requirement for permanent records to be maintained locally. However, inquiries have been made at staff colleges and other training establishments where guest speakers are regularly invited. The staff of those colleges and establishments have been unable to identify any invitations to the Economic League to provide speakers for their courses.

  Army Operations (Forged Materials)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards the use of forged materials in Army operations at home and abroad.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not the practice to comment on operational matters.

  Keenie Meenie Services
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish in the Official Report the text of the letter from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) to the hon. Member for Brent, East on 9 February about Keenie Meenie Services and related matters.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The letter was sent openly and is therefore in the public domain; the text is as follows:Thank you for your letter of 23 January concerning my written reply to you of 15 December (Col. 684 of the Official Record).
  In that reply I stated that I was not aware of any advertisements having been procured or placed in the Ministry of Defence publications by KMS and that remains the case.
  The extracts you provided with your letter were from a brochure which was produced as a commercial venture by International Military Services Ltd. (IMS) in 1985. Although wholly owned by MOD, IMS is a private Limited company incorporated under the Companies Act and is a distinct and separate entity from MOD. In contracting for Defence Exports it adheres to Government policies and to guidelines issued by the MOD. But within these limitations it is free to pursue business and to take initiatives in exactly the same way as any other commercial company. It can be engaged by other private companies and on occasions by HMG in connection with contracts for the export of British defence equipment and associated services in the commercial environment.
  The brochure concerned was entitled Internal Security —Counter Insurgency'. Entries were paid for by various advertisers as a means of publicising the services they offered. Presumably IMS at the time regarded the publication as a viable commercial venture but I understand that it was not a regular publication and has not reappeared since 1985. This was a matter for the commercial judgment of IMS and there is no suggestion that they in any way transgressed the guidelines under which they operate.
  You also asked about the nature of the services provided by IMS to overseas armed forces and paramilitary organisations. This can and does cover a wide range of activities but it can be defined in general terms and in the

  133
  words of the pamphlet itself as the supply of military equipment and the provision of "associated support such as the installation, commissioning and maintenance of equipment and the training of personnel". I must emphasise that IMS works within the constraints of Government policies which in this field, as you know, take account of a wide range of political, security and humanitarian conditions.
  MOD was not and did not expect to be involved in either the publication of the brochure by IMS or the placing of the K MS advertisement and there is therefore no question of correcting or amending the Official Record of my answer of 15 December 1988.

  Guns
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the current purchase costs of(a) one 9mm L34A1 sub machine gun and 34 round magazine, (b) one 5–56mm individual weapon L85 (Endeavour) and 30-round magazine and (c) one 12 bore, L32A1 automatic shotgun and five rounds.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is no longer our practice to publish unit production costs.

ENVIRONMENT

  Government Cars
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many gallons of petrol were consumed for 1987 and 1988 by cars in the Government car pool.

  Mr. Chope
  Figures for the number of gallons of fuel consumed are not readily available and could be obtained

  Consultancy Firm

  Subject of Assignment

  Management consultancy

  P A Computers and Telecommunications Ltd

  To carry out an analysis of PSA financial and management accounting processes as they would be performed under a full commercial accounting regime.

  P A Computers and Telecommunications Ltd

  To examine the impact of existing IT systems relating to Directly Employed Labour (DEL) performance

  Price Waterhouse

  Business and Finance Development

  Samuel Montagu and Co Ltd

  Advice on effecting the sale of the Crown Suppliers

  Write Solutions Ltd

  Assistance with development of the marketing strategy for QEII Conference Centre

  Michael Rines Associates

  Public Relations Support for QEII Conference Centre

  MCP Management Consultants

  Software support

  Farnfield Marketing Consultants Ltd

  Establishing the sales potential of publications produced by PSA's Director General of Design Services

  Duffy, Eley Giffone and Worthington

  Impact of New Technology on Accommodation Standards

  Peat Marwick McLintock

  Assessment of tenders for contracting out management of maintenance and minor works activities

  BIS Applied Systems Ltd

  Support in the development of a Quality Support Framework

  BIS Applied Systems Ltd

  Support in the production of a statement of requirement for PSA's Regional Computing Standards

  BIS Applied Systems Ltd

  Support in the development of a Configuration Management Framework

  Dialatron Business Systems Ltd

  Evaluation, implementation and development of facilities on text processing equipment

  Systems Designers plc

  Software support

  Oracle Corporation UK Ltd

  Software support

  Peat Marwick McLintock

  Introduction of Low Cost 2-dimensional computer aided draughting (CAD) system

  Dr Stanley Port

  Support for General Draughting Management Study

  ICL (UK) Ltd

  Support for computer communications

  Norbec (Microfilm) Ltd

  Support for installation of microfilming system

  BIS Applied Systems Ltd

  Assistance in the review, development and evaluation of IT standards

  ICL (UK) Ltd

  Software support

  ICL (UK) Ltd

  Technical support to link computer operating systems

  Computer Consultancy

  Applied Network Technology Ltd

  Transfer of priority data from an Apple microcomputer to an IBM PC

  P A Computers and Telecommunications Ltd

  Evaluation of PC-based software for project management requirements

  Peter Downes Ltd

  To develop proposals for a comprehensive register of computing, telecoms and office machinery held by PSA

  134
  only at disproportionate cost. But in 1987 the Government car service spent £190,317 on petrol. In 1988 that figure was £183,008 (both figures are exclusive of VAT)

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many cars there are in the Government car pool; and how many of those use unleaded petrol.

  Mr. Chope
  The Government car service operate 181 vehicles. By the middle of this year we intend to have 128 vehicles capable of using unleaded petrol. At present 39 have this capability.

  Computer Consultants
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total amount spent by the Property Services Agency in 1988 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by the Property Services Agency in 1988, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment.

  Mr. Ridley
  Expenditure by the Property Services Agency, on management and computer consultancy contracts in 1988, excluding hardware and software purchases, was £6,462,582.

  The list of each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by the Property Services Agency in 1988, giving the name of each consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment, is as follows:
  135

  Consultancy Firm

  Subject of Assignment

  John Evans & Associates Ltd

  Implementation of revised methods for planning and control of Directly Employed Labour

  CAP Industry Ltd (SEMA Group)

  Public Health Engineering Computerisation

  Prime Computer (UK) Ltd

  Software support

  P A Computers and Telecommunications Ltd

  Support to the planning of the Infrastructure Computer Services Project

  BIS Applied Systems Ltd

  Support in the evaluation of security requirements of PSA's Strategic Infrastructure

  BIS Applied Systems Ltd

  Support in the evaluation of the security requirements of PSA's Interim Systems and Central Hastings Processes

  K P G Computer Support Services Ltd

  Software support

  Peat Marwick McLintock

  Professional Computing Strategy Study

  Metascybe Systems Ltd

  Enhancement to financial control computer system

  Digital Equipment Co. Ltd

  Technical support to link computer operating systems

  Digital Equipment Co. Ltd

  Assistance in the procurement of IT equipment

  ICL (UK) Ltd

  Audit of accounting systems

  P A Computers and Telecommunications Ltd

  Evaluation of short-listed suppliers for computing equipment

  ICL (UK) Ltd

  Specialist support for accounting (LAFIS) software package

  Sports Clubs
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with sporting associations and local authorities relating to mandatory and discretionary relief from non-domestic rates to sports clubs; and what guidance he has issued.

  Mr. Ridley
  My Department is issuing today a consultation letter on the content of proposed regulations about the period for which discretionary rate relief may be granted and the notice which must be given if relief is varied or terminated. I am placing a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Also the Department has discussed with the local authority associations and with the Sports Council what guidance should be given to local authorities on the use of their powers to grant discretionary relief. We plan to consult separately on this subject.

  Rating Reform
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the initial one-off costs of art-work and creative design of "You and the Community Charge: Exemptions" published on 22 March; what further subsidiary leaflets are planned on aspects of the community charge; when these will be published; and what is the total budgetary provision in his Department's estimates for these publications.

  Mr. Ridley
  The initial design and art-work costs of the exemptions leaflet were £2,200.

  Further leaflets are in preparation on rebates—"The Collective Community Charge", "Students and the Community Charge," "Appeals and Second Homes." These will be published variously over the next few weeks. The total estimated cost of all these publications, including that on exemptions, is approximately £113,100.

  Water
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state for each water authority what percentage of the projected necessary funding for improvements in standards of(a) drinking water quality, (b) sewage treatment and disposal and (c) bathing water quality is contained within existing capital programmes.

  Mr. Ridley
  The information requested by the hon. Member is not available. I refer the hon. Member to the 136
  answer given to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) on 25 January 1989.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide details for each water authority of the funding allocated to improvements in(a) drinking water quality, (b) sewage treatment and disposal and (c) bathing water quality standards through existing capital programmes for each of the next 10 years.

  Mr. Ridley
  The information requested by the hon. Member is not available.

  Concierge Systems (Tower Blocks)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make funds available for a concierge system on the two remaining tower blocks on Edward Woods estate in Shepherds Bush.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 23 March 1989]: The estate action programme has already provided resources for a pilot scheme at Stebbing house involving a concierge system. The council's outline bid for further resources for similar facilities at the two other tower blocks on the estate is under consideration.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment what assessment he has made of the extent to which the existence of concierge systems on tower blocks is a useful deterrent to crime.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 23 March 1989]: The report "A Better Reception", published by the Department of the Environment in March last year pointed to evidence that concierge schemes do deter crime as well as making blocks of flats more pleasant places in which to live. A further study of concierge and other schemes in local authority high rise blocks of flats is in progress.

  Housing (Transfers)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice be given to the London borough of Redbridge concerning the choice to be given to tenants in relation to estate transfers.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 23 March 1989]: It is for the council to decide what proposal it wishes to put before its tenants.
  137
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment whether he has had any meetings with the London borough of Redbridge to discuss its proposed transfer of housing.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 23 March 19891: Council officers had a meeting with officials of the Department on 3317 January 1989 to discuss in general terms the Department's guidelines on voluntary transfers. There have been no meetings since the Department was sent on 9 March a copy of the report approved by the council's housing services committee on 1 March.

  £ thousands

  1981–82 1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Voluntary

  63

  130

  86

  781

  808

  839

  Health

  9

  84

  25

  —

  —

  —

  Education and Training

  445

  563

  852

  415

  1,634

  791

  Other

  926

  2,843

  2,201

  1,374

  1,669

  2,195

  Sports Arena

  —

  124

  1,207

  1,012

  3

  —

  Housing Improvements

  416

  390

  22

  208

  1,671

  2,287

  Housing

  1,056

  2,228

  63

  25

  —

  —

  TOTALS

  2,915

  6,362

  4,456

  3,815

  5,785

  6,112

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Alan Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he intends to take to control air pollution from(a) National Health Service incinerators and boiler plants and (b) other Crown properties.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Clean Air Acts already provide statutory contols over atmospheric emissions from National Health Service incinerators and boilers and other combustion processes on Crown premises. Where there is potential for significant air pollution Crown premises are controlled like any other industrial site by the national pollution inspectorates. Regulations due to come into force on 31 March will bring National Health Service incinerators with an hourly capacity of more than one tonne under their control. A consultation paper in December 1988 proposed further amendment to the schedule of processes subject to prior approval by the national inspectorates and the introduction of a parallel schedule for local authority control. A copy is in the Library of the House.

  Waste Management '89
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what departmental representation was made, anti what papers from the United Kingdom were presented, at the Waste Management '89 conference held in Tuscon, Arizona, the United States of America, between 26 February and 2 March.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department was not represented at this conference.

  Hinckley C (Inquiry)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what departmental resources have been

  London Docklands
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money the London Docklands development corporation has spent on social regeneration in each year of its existence; and what projects it has initiated or supported.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information is as follows:

  All London Docklands development corporation's expenditure on regeneration should improve local social conditions directly or indirectly. It is not practicable to identify a clear "social" category or to list the projects. Subject to that the following table gives a indication of expenditure in this area.

  committed to the Hinckley C public inquiry in terms of official presence, the monitoring of evidence and the production of evidence.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Departmental officials gave evidence at the Hinckley Point C public inquiry on 9 and 10 February under topic 2 and expect to give evidence under topics 3 and 4. The Department has submitted three proofs of evidence to the inquiry. All evidence submitted to the inquiry is monitored by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  Radioactive Waste
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he received the proposals from the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive for low and intermediate level radioactive waste disposal repositories; and when he expects to make an announcement on the issue.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government received Nirex's report and recommendations on 28 February. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the Government's response in the answer he gave on 21 March to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry.) at column 506.

  Urban Development Grants
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the value of urban development grants by metropolitan district council area in the north-west of England for each year since 1979 at constant prices.

  Mr. Trippier
  Urban development grant was launched in 1982. The table shows the amount of grant in schemes approved in each year in each metropolitan district council area, adjusted to 1988–89 prices.
  139

  Value of approved urban development grant at 1988–89 prices in £ millions

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Total

  Bolton

  —

  5·160

  0·146

  0·152

  0·684

  0·014

  6·156

  Knowsley

  0·704

  —

  —

  3·499

  —

  —

  4·203

  Liverpool

  1·181

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·181

  Greater Manchester

  —

  —

  2·543

  —

  —

  —

  2·543

  Manchester

  2·720

  1·052

  —

  0·471

  0·901

  —

  5·144

  Merseyside

  2·049

  0·216

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2·265

  Oldham

  0·939

  0·607

  0·032

  0·199

  0·236

  0·390

  2·403

  Rochdale

  0·293

  0·061

  0·043

  —

  0·339

  —

  0·736

  Salford

  0·512

  —

  —

  0·694

  —

  0·995

  2·201

  Sefton

  —

  —

  0·190

  —

  0·372

  —

  0·562

  Trafford

  —

  0·035

  0·520

  —

  —

  —

  0·555

  Wigan

  0·435

  —

  —

  —

  0·048

  —

  0·483

  Wirral

  —

  0·295

  —

  3·317

  0·460

  0·031

  4·103

  Water Quality
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give since 1979, and by division within the Severn-Trent water authority, the number of breaches of European directives for mercury and cadmium in river sediment, in addition to breaches for the pesticide lindane; and what action he has taken to rectify this.

  Mr. Moynihan
  There have been no known breaches of the European directives for mercury, cadmium and lindane within the Severn-Trent water authority since the relevant directives came into effect in 1986. Nevertheless, steps are being taken to reduce further inputs of these substances in line with the undertakings given at the 1987 North sea conference.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list information available to him, by division, within the Severn-Trent water authority, as to the number of miles of prime, game and course fishing rivers which have been unsuitable for fishing since 1979.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Since 1980, the Severn-Trent water authority has designated around 2000 km of rivers and canals for the purposes of EEC Directive 78/659/EEC on the quality of freshwater needed to support fish life. These waters are classified as either salmonoid (game fisheries) or cyprinid (coarse fisheries).

  I understand that no stretches have become unsuitable for fishing since 1979.

  Rivers (Grading)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by rivers the classification grades of rivers by each division within the Severn-Trent water authority.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The latest available information is in the form of maps showing the classification of all rivers included in the 1985 river quality survey of England and Wales. This has been published for each water authority, including Severn-Trent. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Water Authorities (Performance Targets)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the criteria on the performance targets set for each chairman of the national water authorities.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Targets set and achievement against them, are published each year in water authority's annual report and accounts. Copies are available in the Library of the House. In setting these targets the Government take account of past performance, the characteristics of the region within which the authority operates, and an assessment of the scope for improvement in performance.

  Severn-Trent Water Authority (Chairman)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for the past five years for the chairman of Severn-Trent water authority(a) the annual bonus he received based on the performance targets set him and (b) his basic salary.

  Mr. Moynihan
  In response to the first part of the hon. Member's question, I refer him to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) on 28 February at columns 109–110.

  The basic salary of the chairman of the Severn-Trent water authority in each of the past five years has been as follows:

  Year (1 July lo 30 June)

  Salary (£)

  1984–85

  33,600

  1985–86

  35,480

  1986–87

  37,608

  1987–88

  41,604

  1988–89

  45,600

  Drought
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the present levels of water reserves in the Severn-Trent water authority; have they applied for any drought orders; what are the risks of drought conditions arising during the coming months of 1989; and if he will list by location and area division the areas most susceptible to drought conditions.
  141
  Mr. Moynihan
  Reservoir storage levels are now generally satisfactory throughout the Severn-Trent water authority area. Groundwater resources are also adequate except for some spring sources in Gloucestershire. The authority has not applied for any drought orders and foresees no difficulty in meeting demand unless a dry summer occurs. In that event, the east midlands will continue to be vulnerable pending completion of Carsington reservoir due in 1933. Water supplies in limited areas of Gloucestershire could also be affected by drought conditions this summer.

  South Yorkshire (Strategic Guidance)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what strategic guidance exists for South Yorkshire; to whom this has been made available; and if he will make a statement.

  Employment at May 1983 (a)

  Employment at September 1984 (b)

  Employment at December 1985 (c)

  Employment at December 1986 (c)

  Allerdale

  —

  600

  1,400

  2,000

  North-East Lancashire

  —

  740

  1,900

  2,400

  Salford/Trafford

  3,306

  3,100

  4,200

  5,200

  Speke

  1,018

  800

  700

  1,200

  Sources: (a) Roger Tym and Partners, 1984, monitoring enterprise zones year three report.

  (b) Enterprise zone information 1983–84, DOE July 1985.

  (c) Department of Employment.

  Raleigh Site (Nottingham)
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list those with whom he has considered the benefits of providing a city grant to assist the redevelopment of the Raleigh site in the inner city area of Nottingham; and whether the case for facilitating an export-led expansion of the company's activities has been taken into account;

  (2) if, when considering the city grant application from Raleigh Industries, Nottingham, he will make it his policy to take into account both the normal employment criteria and its overall impact on the relocation and development of this site.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department has not received an application in respect of the Raleigh site. If an application is received it will be fully appraised in the usual way, taking into account both the direct employment implications and the wider urban regenerative impact on inner Nottingham.

  Sewage Works
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list the sewage works by division within the Severn-Trent water authority which are to be allowed relaxation in breaching the legal limits on effluent set by him; and what is the time scale for this relaxation;

  (2) if he will list the water authorities who have replied to his document dated 1 February, asking them to speed up applications for relaxation of pollution controls on discharges from sewage works; if he will list the locations of each application so far received; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Severn-Trent water authority, and the other water authorities have been invited to apply for time-limited variations to discharge consents for those
  142
  Mr. Chope
  No strategic guidance exists for South Yorkshire at the present time. I shall be issuing draft strategic guidance in the near future and will welcome the views of the general public, local authorities and other interested organisations.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the change in the level of employment in each of the enterprise zones in the north-west in each of the past three years.

  Mr. Trippier
  The table below shows how employment levels changed between May 1983 and December 1986, the latest date for which information is available. Information on employment at October 1987 will be published shortly.

  sewage treatment works where they plan to complete improvement schemes designed to bring these works up to standard by March 1992.

  In addition, water authorities may also apply for longer-term variations in respect of a limited number of minor works, where it can be demonstrated that investment to meet current consent requirements would produce negligible environmental benefits.

  In all cases, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution will consider applications on their merits before deciding whether to grant revised consent conditions. Time limits on these temporary variations will normally be imposed to run from approval of the authority's application to the expected commissioning date of the improved works.

  The Department and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution are in discussion with the water authorities about these applications. When applications are made and consents given, details are entered on the authority's register which may be inspected, free of charge, by anyone at all reasonable hours. Responses to the Departments letter of 1 February were obtained from all water authorities by telephone.

  Gipsies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state for the latest date for which he has figures, the numbers of travellers' children of school age within the Doncaster metropolitan borough council area, as detailed in the statistics gathered by his Department's gipsy sites branch; and what were the figures for(a) 10 and (b) five years ago.

  Mr. Trippier
  Providing these statistics is a voluntary exercise, and I regret to say that Doncaster has not
  143
  provided information on the numbers of travellers' children of school age in its borough since the bi-annual count began in 1979.

  Government Buildings (Drinking Water)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by location all Government buildings where the drinking water supply from the mains is unsuitable for drinking and alternative sources have to be used; what are those sources; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I have no information which indicates any cases where the water supplied to Government buildings from water undertakers mains is unsuitable for drinking and alternative sources have to be used.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what advice and information, in the form of a code of guidance, is currently available to owners and occupiers of sites of special scientific interest under the provision of section 33 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; what price is charged for such a code; whether the Nature Conservancy Council issues the code to all owners and occupiers of sites of special scientific interest notified after the passing of the Wildlife and Countryside Act of 1985; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) pursuant to his reply of 10 February, to the hon. Member for Don Valley, Official Report, column 816, on how many occasions a revised code of guidance on sites of special scientific interest has been laid before Parliament since the passing of the Wildlife and Countryside Act of 1985; what was the reason for withdrawal of the previous code in each case; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 10 February to the hon. Member for Don Valley, Official Report, column 816, how many items in the current code of guidance on sites of special scientific interest have been superseded by the Wildlife and Countryside Act of 1985; and whether contravention of the current code constitutes a breach of the amended codes.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Section 33 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 provides for the preparation and issue, subject to parliamentary approval, of a code of guidance for sites of special scientific interest to interested parties and the general public. The original version of the code was published in 1982 and the Nature Conservancy Council supplied copies free of charge to all owners and occupiers notified of SSSIs under the Act.

  Amendments to the notification procedures were introduced by the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act 1985 and the Wildlife and Countryside (Service of Notices) Act 1985. The code of guidance has not been reprinted. A revised version incorporating appropriate amendments is in preparation and will be submitted for approval by Parliament later this year. In the meantime NCC has provided advice to owners and occupiers on initial notifications of an SSSI in the form of its own publication "Sites of Special Scientific Interest".

  The code of guidance is advisory; its provisions carry no legal force.

  Hadrian's Wall
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to preserve and restore Hadrian's wall.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Responsibility for Hadrian 's wall rests with a number of public and private owners. English Heritage acts on behalf of the Government to ensure that those sections of the wall which it owns are properly conserved. It has also provided grants for conservation work on those stretches of the wall owned by others, including the National Trust. The known parts of the wall are scheduled as ancient monuments so that the Secretary of State decides whether to grant consent on all work affecting the wall. In this he is advised by English Heritage.

  Microlight Aircraft
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if it is his intention to bring the use of land for the purpose of taking off and landing of microlight aircraft within the scope of the general development order.

  Mr. Chope
  The use of land for this purpose is already permitted for up to 28 days in any calendar year by class B of part 4 of schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988.

  Churston Golf Club
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for South Hams,Official Report, 21 March, what further information on the planning appeal with regard to Churston golf club, Torbay, he is waiting for; what are the reasons for his delay in reaching a decision on the appeal; and what factors are required to bring him to a decision.

  Mr. Chope
  Although pressure of planning business has meant that this appeal has taken longer than I would wish, it is also necessary to consider highway amendments proposed by the developer after the appeal had been lodged. The appeal cannot be determined until interested parties have had an opportunity to comment in writing on the proposed amendments. A decision on the appeal will be issued as quickly as possible when this process has been completed.

  Housing Investment Programme
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has decided on the additional housing investment programme resources to be made available to local authorities with substantial housing defects obligations.

  Mr. Trippier
  We have decided to allocate the £15 million of HIP resources to 75 local authorities, which are today being notified individually by my Department's regional controllers. The authorities receiving such allocations are as follows:

  Region

  Amount (£)

  Northern

  Newcastle-upon Tyne

  100,000

  Chester-le-Street

  40,000

  145

  Region

  Amount (£)

  Gateshead

  40,000

  Teesdale

  40,000

  Tynedale

  14,000

  Total

  234,000

  North West

  Salford

  75,000

  Wigan

  90,000

  South Ribble

  60,000

  Tameside

  20,000

  Stockport

  45,000

  Rossendale

  60,000

  Crewe

  40,000

  Bury

  50,000

  Total

  440,000

  Merseyside Task Force

  Ellesmere Port

  245,000

  Liverpool

  545,000

  St. Helens

  25,000

  Total

  815,000

  East Midlands

  Boston

  78,000

  Chesterfield

  186,000

  Corby

  182,000

  Derbyshire Dales

  236,000

  Gedling

  262,000

  North East Derbyshire

  218,000

  North Kesteven

  79,000

  South Holland

  195,000

  Total

  1,436,000

  Eastern

  Thurrock

  400,000

  Epping Forest

  400,000

  East Herts

  149,000

  Three Rivers

  140,000

  Total

  1,089,000

  South East

  Eastleigh

  150,000

  Reading

  130,000

  Rochester

  390,000

  Runnymede

  135,000

  Southampton

  650,000

  Total

  1,455,000

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Barnsley

  125,000

  Doncaster

  50,000

  Harrogate

  25,000

  Leeds

  400,000

  Rotherham

  360,000

  Sheffield

  100,000

  Wakefield

  170,000

  Total

  1,230,000

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  445,000

  Dudley

  169,000

  Hereford City

  134,000

  Newcastle-under-Lyme

  389,000

  North Warwickshire

  260,000

  Nuneaton and Bedworth

  251,000

  Redditch

  58,000

  Sandwell

  667,000

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  690,000

  Stoke-on-Trent

  54,000

  Walsall

  125,000

  146

  Region

  Amount (£)

  Warwick

  69,000

  Wolverhampton

  171,000

  Worcester City

  114,000

  Total

  3,596,000

  South West

  Bristol

  1,250,000

  Cotswold

  100,000

  Kerrier

  100,000

  Mid Devon

  130,000

  Northavon

  350,000

  North Cornwall

  100,000

  North Wiltshire

  180,000

  Restormel

  100,000

  Salisbury

  200,000

  Stroud

  150,000

  Tewkesbury

  400,000

  Thamesdown

  213,000

  West Wiltshire

  100,000

  Weymouth and Portland

  170,000

  Woodspring

  150,000

  Total

  3,639,000

  London region

  Barking

  150,000

  Havering

  150,000

  Merton

  100,000

  Redbridge

  200,000

  Richmond

  262,000

  Waltham Forest

  150,000

  Total

  1,012,000

  Empty Dwellings
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the secretary of state for the environment if he will list each scheme to bring empty housing association dwellings into use for homeless households, where these dwellings were developed with local authority funding but the local authority is unable to fund the necessary major repairs, financed by the Housing Corporation under the initiative announced on 24 March 1988,Official Report, columns 191–92; and if he will state for each scheme (a) the number of units of accommodation provided, (b) the housing association involved, (c) the local authorities with nomination rights to these units, (d) the scheme's date of completion and (e) the scheme's capital cost.

  Mr. Trippier
  This information is not held centrally. I have asked the Housing Corporation to supply so much of it as it can provide without disproportionate cost, to the hon. Member direct.

  Housing Investment
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list at 1989–90 prices his Department's gross provision for local authority housing capital investment for each year since 1980–81, together with an estimate for 1989–90.

  Mr. Trippier
  The public expenditure surveys have made the following gross provision for local authority housing capital investment.
  147

  1989–90 prices1

  Year

  £ million

  1980–81

  23,690

  1981–82

  23,350

  1982–83

  3,515

  1983–84

  3,383

  1984–85

  3,230

  1985–86

  2,851

  1986–87

  3,009

  1987–88

  3,306

  1988–89

  33,216

  1989–90

  33,303

  1 Revalued using the GDP deflator.

  2 The White Paper figures have been converted from survey prices to outturn prices and then converted to 1989–90 outturn prices using the GDP deflator.

  3 Includes local authority lending to housing associations shown under "Central Government" in Cm 288 and 609.

  Unused Sites (Thamesdown)
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the environment if he will list all the unused sites owned by public bodies within the borough of Thamesdown, together with their owners and sizes in hectares as detailed in the land register.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information about all the sites, grouped by owner, is listed below:

  Site name

  Size in hectares

  Thamesdown Borough Council

  Land at Groundwell Farm, Cricklade Road, Swindon

  70·82

  Land on West Side of Swindon to Highworth Road

  44·52

  Land South West of Akers Way/South East of Purton Road, Swindon

  41·68

  Land at Sparcells, Roughmoor and Lower Shaw Farm, Shaw, Swindon

  41·58

  Land at Home Farm, Highworth

  33·19

  Land at Wick Farm, Lydiard and Upper Shaw Farm, Shaw, Swindon

  12·91

  Land at Broome Farm, Swindon

  11·74

  Land on North East Side of Kite Hill, Wanborough

  4·86

  Land on South West Side of Kite Hill, Wanborough

  2·05

  Land at Elm Grove, Shaw, Swindon

  1·52

  Wiltshire County Council

  Former Moredon Railway Line

  15·38

  Land at Kingshill, Swindon (Rushey Platt)

  9·63

  Land at Hughes Street, Swindon

  9·51

  Land at Dorcan School Swindon

  8·22

  Land South of Church Street, Stratton St. Margaret

  7·49

  Land at Haydon Wick

  2·21

  Land at the Rear of Beatrice Street, Swindon

  1·86

  Land at Belmont Farm, Codrington, Near Wroughton

  1·82

  Land at Ruskin Junior School Annexe, Stratton St. Margaret

  1·62

  Land at Kingsdown High School, Stratton St. Margaret

  1·62

  Land at Meadway/Stonehill Green, Westlea Down, Swindon

  1·60

  Land at Baker's Field, Lower Wanborough

  1·47

  Land adjoining Attlee Crescent, Stratton St. Margaret

  1·38

  Park Farm, Moredon, Swindon

  1·32

  Land at Scarborough Road, Swindon

  0·66

  Former Queenstown Infants School/6–10 Turl Street/ 15–17 Oriel Street, Swindon

  0·43

  Swindon Health Authority

  Land at Cricklade Road, Gorse Hill, Swindon

  2·16

  Department of Transport

  Land at Stratton St. Margaret, Swindon

  5·16

  148

  Site name

  Size in hectares

  British Rail

  Land Rear of Dean Street, Swindon

  5·46

  Tree Preservation Orders
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many tree preservation orders have been made in each county in England(a) for individual trees and (b) for groups of trees or woods; and what area is covered by the latter case.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally. A recent sample survey of 31 districts and boroughs in England found that more than 90 per cent. of tree preservation orders related to trees in or on the fringe of urban areas, and that a large number were on single trees in front gardens. The consultants who carried out the survey for the Department concluded that a typical authority in their sample had over 5,000 trees protected by over 200 orders.

  Insulation
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will include the inspection of loft roof, cavity wall and under floor insulation in the statutory requirements for which local authority buildings inspectors are responsible.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Building Regulations 1985 include requirements relating to the conservation of fuel and power which can be met in a variety of ways, including loft roof, cavity wall and under floor insulation. There are also specific requirements relating to the way in which cavity wall insulation is undertaken. Local authority building control officers are already responsible for ensuring that building work to which the regulations apply complies with these requirements.

  Development Corporations
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether, following the National Audit Office's report, the Merseyside development corporation has introduced a greater price competition for any contracts going out to consultants;

  (2) whether the Merseyside development corporation has changed its marketing strategy following the National Audit Office report on urban development corporations;

  (3) if, following the National Audit Office's report, the Merseyside development corporation has changed its tendering policy for works contracts;

  (4) if any changes have taken place in the monitoring of the developer of the Albert dock following the report of the National Audit Office; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The work of all UDCs is continuously monitored and the NAO findings are taken into account in that process. The report of the Public Accounts Committee is awaited. In the meantime the Merseyside development corporation has:

  (i) reviewed its procedures for the competitive selection of consultants to place greater emphasis on price competition in addition to the factors such as relevant experience and past performance. Commissions are

  149
  awarded on the basis of best value for money and with rare exception firms submitting the lowest fees and expenses receive the commission;

  (ii) strengthened its marketing team and activities, including the new appointment of a marketing manager. The MDC is taking a much more active role in promoting Merseyside, as part of Merseyside integrated development operations, the business opportunities on Merseyside initiative and north-west promotions such as INWARD and Fast Forward, as well as continuing its support for the Merseyside tourism board;

  (iii) continued to place all of its work contracts by competitive tender to suitable firms with proven contract performance. Tender lists are now compiled to ensure that at least one firm is included which has not had a recent tendering opportunity;

  (iv) met regularly the Albert dock company at both chairman and director level to plan and to monitor the property management and service arrangements and to review charges and income.

  Merseyside Development Corporation
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the current members of the Merseyside development corporation; and if he intends to make any new appointments.

  Mr. Trippier
  The members of the Merseyside development corporation board are:

  Mr. Philip Carter CBE—Chairman

  Mr. John Smith CBE—Deputy Chairman

  Professor Graham Ashworth CBE

  Mr. Brian Thaxter

  Professor Patrick Minford

  Mr. Clive Lewis, FRICS, FSVA

  Councillor Thomas Glover

  Councillor John Hale

  Dr. John Ritchie MBE

  New appointments will be announced shortly.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each year since its establishment the amount of private investment attracted into the Merseyside development corporation area; and if he will give the investment in(a) Liverpool and (b) the Wirral.

  Mr. Trippier
  Private investment in Merseyside development corporation's area is as follows:

  Liverpool (including Bootle)

  Wirral

  Total

  (£ million)

  (£ million)

  (£ million)

  1981–82

  —

  —

  —

  1982–83

  —

  —

  —

  1983–84

  2·535

  —

  2·535

  1984–85

  4·995

  —

  4·995

  1985–86

  4·138

  —

  4·138

  1986–87

  6·413

  —

  6·413

  1987–88

  7·600

  0·500

  8·100

  1988–89

  10·200

  4·500

  14·700

  Expenditure (£ million)

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Liverpool (including Bootle)

  2·875

  18·043

  28·309

  23·783

  24·115

  19·896

  20·710

  11·939

  Wirral

  1·072

  0·118

  0·643

  1·105

  0·839

  0·854

  2·597

  3·685

  TOTAL PROJECTS

  3·947

  18·161

  28·952

  24·888

  24·954

  20·750

  23·307

  15·624

  Administration, estate management and contributions to voluntary organisations

  1·086

  2·597

  3·048

  4·353

  3·039

  4·147

  4·968

  5·376

  TOTAL MDC EXPENDITURE

  5·033

  20·758

  32·000

  29·241

  27·993

  24·897

  28·275

  21·000

  150
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each year since its establishment the amount of commercial or industrial floor space owned by the Merseyside development corporation which was(a) let (b) under refurbishment (c) awaiting refurbishment, and (d) awaiting demolition.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information is as follows. Figures are not readily available for years prior to 1987.

  Industrial/Commercial Floorspace owned by Merseyside Development Corporation

  March 1987 (000s sq ft)

  March 1988 (000s sq ft)

  March 1989 (000s sq ft)

  Let

  1,074

  1,193

  1,477

  Awaiting/under Refurbishment1

  1327

  1,431

  805

  Awaiting Demolition

  791

  78

  610

  Total

  3,192

  2,702

  2,892

  1 These two categories cannot be disaggregated.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the projected number of new jobs which will be created in the next two years by the Merseyside development corporation; and if he will divide this figure between(a) construction and (b) the longer term jobs.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Merseyside development corporation's programme is expected to provide an estimated 3,500 man years of construction work and 3,200 longer-term jobs over the next two years.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many construction jobs will be created by the work of the Merseyside development corporation; and how many will go to local workers.

  Mr. Trippier
  Investment by the Merseyside development corporation has led to on-site construction jobs providing between 800–1000 man years' work annually since 1981. This is expected to grow to 1,400–1,600 jobs a year during further phases of the redevelopment programme. Merseyside contractors win competitively over 90 per cent. of MDC contracts by value and the vast majority of employees are Merseyside residents.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the sums of money spent in each year since its inception by the Merseyside development corporation; and if he will give the sums for(a) Liverpool and (b) Wirral.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information is as follows:
  151
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the numbers of jobs created each year of its existence by the Merseyside development corporation; and if he will give separate figures for(a) Liverpool and (b) Wirral.

  £ thousands

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Merseyside/MDC Image Advertising

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  585

  310

  380

  279

  366

  Site-Specific Advertising

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  110

  282

  130

  62

  262

  Support for the Merseyside Tourism Board

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  250

  250

  281

  Press/Information Service

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  25

  12

  56

  58

  62

  TOTAL

  31

  423

  603

  720

  604

  816

  649

  971

  Housing Statistics
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authority houses were built in(a) Warrington, (b) Macclesfield, (c) Congleton, (d) Crewe and Nantwich, (e) Vale Royal and (f) Staffordshire Moorlands in (i) 1978 and (ii) 1988; and how many it is estimated will be built in these areas in 1989.

  Mr. Trippier
  Local authority housebuilding completions reported as taking place in these housing authorities in 1978 appear in "Local Housing Statistics", issue 49, a copy of which is available in the Library. Figures reported for 1988 are as follows:

  Number of local authority housebuilding completions

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  15

  Congleton

  8

  Crewe and Nantwich

  8

  Macclesfield

  26

  Vale Royal

  57

  Warrington

  164

  1 January to November only

  The Department does not have estimates of 1989 housebuilding activity by local authorities.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) private sector houses and (b) public sector housing units there are currently on (i) Notting Hill housing trust-owned estates and (ii) other housing association estates; how many such units are proposed by these bodies in the next year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  This information is not held by the Department, the Housing Corporation is responsible for monitoring, supervising and distributing funds to registered housing associations in England. I have, therefore, asked the Housing Corporation to supply to my hon. Friend direct information about existing and planned developments in his constituency involving the Notting Hill housing trust and other housing associations.

  Council House Building
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities currently have a council house building programme.

  Mr. Trippier
  A total of 355 local authorities indicated on their housing investment programme returns (HIP2),
  152
  Mr. Trippier
  The promotion and marketing budget for the Merseyside development corporation is shown below. The figures can be broken down only from 1984–84 onwards.

  completed in April 1988, that they expected to incur expenditure on new housebuilding construction in 1988–89.

  Housing Shortages
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will assess the extent to which Waveney district council can benefit from recent Government initiatives of policy on the co-operation between local authorities and the private and housing association sectors to reduce housing shortages.

  Mr. Trippier
  Waveney district council, along with all other housing authorities, will benefit from our policies designed to promote authorities' enabling role in ensuring an adequate supply of houses for sale and rent in urban and rural areas.

  Lindane Container (Loss)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the policy implications of the loss of the lindane container in the Channel.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Lindane is a pesticide with wood preservative and agricultural uses. As such it is subject to control as a pesticide under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. It has been identified among the group of substances known as organochlorines which are considered most hazardous to the aquatic environment in view of their toxicity, persistence and capacity for bio-accumulation. Lindane is included in the provisional priority list of dangerous substances (the Red List) whose release to United Kingdom coastal and inland waters should be minimised and which will be the subject of new and tighter controls.

  A major accidental discharge of the substance would be of serious environmental concern. There are national and international requirements for the loss or likely loss of this substance to be reported without delay by the fastest telecommunication channels available and with the highest possible priority to the nearest coastal state. If a marine accident occurs which threatens United Kingdom interests, the responsibility for combating a potential pollution hazard at sea rests with the marine pollution control unit of the Department of Transport, which takes account of advice from the fisheries Departments and others concerned with protection of the marine environment.

  Development (Islington)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will indicate, for all housing associations and co-operatives carrying out approved development work within the London borough of Islington, what block 2 tender approvals have been issued and for which schemes for financial year 1989–90, and for how many units of accommodation in each case; and what criteria have been used in reaching decisions about which projects to select for such tender approval.

  Mr. Trippier
  This information is not held by the Department. The Housing Corporation is responsible for allocating its capital programme to individual housing associations and schemes within the broad framework agreed annually by my right hon. Friend. I have, therefore, asked the Housing Corporation to reply to the hon. Member direct.

  Gloucester District Council
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what authority officials in his Department recently phoned Gloucester district council with consent for a proposed voluntary transfer; and on what grounds the valuation of the sale was changed.

  Mr. Trippier
  Gloucester city council has not applied for consent to dispose of its housing nor could it do so before consulting tenants as required by schedule 3A to the Housing Act 1985.

  On the instructions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, officials informed the council that he continued to take the view that sales of tenanted council housing should be at tenanted market value; but that he would expect to be willing in this particular case to consider sympathetically any application from the city council for consent under section of the Local Government Act 1988 to assist a purchaser of its housing where the assistance was in respect of specified works on the property being transferred, firm arrangements were in place to ensure that it was used only in connection with those works and the amount of any assistance did not exceed £1,500 in respect of each dwelling.

  London Docklands
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state the numbers of jobs within the area of the London docklands development corporation from 1981 to the latest convenient date which(a) have ceased to exist within the area, (b) have been transferred into the area from elsewhere, (c) have been originated in the area as new employment and (d) now exist in the area, and the number in (c) above expressed as a percentage of (d).

  Mr. Trippier
  The LDDC/RISU employment survey, conducted in 1987, showed that 36,385 jobs existed in the LDDC area in companies responding to the survey. Of this total, 15,724 jobs were in companies which had moved to London Docklands since 1981; 4,593 jobs were in companies originating in the area since 1981; and 16,068 were in companies present throughout the period. Jobs in companies originating in the area since 1981 therefore accounted for 12·6 per cent. of the total number of jobs at the time of the survey.
  154
  The 1981 annual census of employment counted 27,123 jobs in London Docklands. There was therefore a net increase of 9,172 jobs in the area between 1981 and 1987. By 1987 companies which were not present in 1981 accounted for 20,318 jobs.

  The survey report deduces that 11,145 jobs were lost in companies present throughout the period and in companies which ceased trading in the area.

  All figures from the 1987 survey relate to jobs recorded in "employment establishments" only. In addition, there were 5,668 people employed in "other employments". The estimated response rate to the survey was 93 per cent.

  Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to protect areas of outstanding natural beauty from untoward development(a) by strengthening controls or (b) by adding certain of them to national parks.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Controls over development in areas of outstanding natural beauty are already the same as those in national parks. Permitted development rights are restricted in those areas, and planning policy guidance note 7 (Rural Enterprise and Development), a copy of which is in the Library, recognises that the location, design and external appearance of development in these areas should be subject to special scrutiny, and that major industrial or commercial development would generally be inconsistent with their designation.

  There are no plans to designate any AONB as a national park.

  Norfolk Broads
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to extend the number of national parks by including the Norfolk Broads.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The new Broads Authority established under the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988 exercises the same range of powers and functions as those conferred on national park authorities and will receive the same rate of Government grant.

  Ivory
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he takes any measures to ensure that imported ivory products do not originate from illegally taken ivory.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The United Kingdom strictly implements controls on trade in ivory in accordance with the convention on international trade in endangered species which is applied in the European Community under EC Regulations 3626/82 and 3418/83.

  Office of Water Supply and National Rivers Authority
  Sir Neil Macfarlane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated cost for the Office of Water Supply and the National Rivers Authority in 1990; how many staff will he required; and how many offices will be required.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 23 March 1989]: The current estimated costs of the water services office and the

  155
  customer services committees will be about £3·7 million in the year 1990–91; the staff will number about 80. The number of offices required is a matter for the Director General of Water Services to decide in due course.

  The estimated cost of the National Rivers Authority in 1990–91 is £290 million. It is expected to employ some 6,500 staff. The vast majority of the NRA's staff will be based in the regions, mainly in accommodation which will transfer to it from the water authorities but a central policy unit of about 60 will be located in London in the offices currently occupied by the National Rivers Authority advisory committee.

  Archaeological Sites
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Evironment if he will take steps to ensure that unscheduled archaeological sites of importance discovered in the course of site clearance following the granting of planning permission for redevelopment can be excavated and recorded prior to redevelopment.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [pursuant to her answer 22 March 1989 c. 643]: The desirability of preserving an ancient monument and its setting is a material consideration for the determination of planning applications, whether or not that monument is scheduled. Local planning authorities may also wish to impose conditions requiring developers to allow access for archaeologists to observe work and record items of interest, when granting planning permission affecting unscheduled sites of archaeological interest.

  It remains open to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, after consultation with English Heritage, to schedule monuments which he considers to be of national importance even after planning permission for redevelopment has been granted. In such cases scheduled monument consent would then be needed before either archaeological or development work could proceed. Where significant finds are made before or during the course of development, it is usually preferable to resolve the situation by non-statutory means. We commend the growing practice of voluntary agreements between developers and archaeologists to enable archaeological evaluations to be carried out before redevelopment.

  Director General of Water Services
  Mr. Bevan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment where the Office of the Director General of Water Services will be located.

  Mr. Ridley
  [pursuant to the reply, 23 March 1989, c. 782]: I am pleased to announce that the first Director General of Water Services will be Ian Byatt, currently deputy chief economic adviser at the Treasury.

  The establishment of a new independent regulator for the water industry is a key component of our plans for the industry. The new water plcs will be regional monopolies and the regulator's function will be to ensure that neither the newly privatised nor the existing water companies can unfairly exploit this. The Director General of Water Services will protect consumers of all the companies, compare the performance of the different companies and ensure that each company has clear incentives to improve its efficiency.

  The director general will ensure that the companies carry out their functions effectively and that they can raise
  156
  the finance they need to do so. He will be responsible for ensuring that companies comply with the conditions of their appointments.

  Consumer protection will be a central part of the new director general's functions. His responsibilities will include:

  —regulation of charges by setting a ceiling for price increases;

  —monitoring of service standards, and enforcement of higher standards where necessary;

  —establishment of customer service committees to investigate complaints and provide a forum for consumers to make known their views; and

  —encouraging greater efficiency by promoting competition within the industry so that all may aspire to the standards of service delivery and cost-effectiveness of the best.

  The director general will take up these duties once companies have been appointed as water and sewerage undertakers in September, under the proposals in the Water Bill currently being considered by Parliament. In the meantime Ian Byatt will be preparing for his new responsibilities. We shall be liaising closely with him to ensure a smooth transition to the new regime, and he will be a source of advice to me in setting up the regulatory framework for the companies on their appointment in September.

SCOTLAND

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total amount of hill livestock compensatory allowances paid in 1988; what was the total number of claimants; and how many individuals claimed more than £6,750.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Hill livestock compensatory allowances amounting to just over £43·5 million were paid in 1988 to 18,365 applicants. Of these, 1,793 received payments of more than £6,750.

  Farm Sizes
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of farming units in Scotland; and how many are between(a) four and eight British size units, (b) eight and 12 British size units and (c) 12 and 16 British size units.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of farms included in the June 1988 agricultural census in Scotland was 26,239. Within this total the numbers of farms in the ranges for which information is sought are as follows:

  British size units

  Number of farms

  4 to 8

  3,170

  8 to 12

  2,354

  12 to 16

  1,967

  Public Defender System
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in implementing a public defender in Scotland as recommended by the Hughes royal commission.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Provision has been made in the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 for the
  157
  employment by the Scottish Legal Aid Board of solicitors to act for clients. My right hon. and learned Friend intends to undertake full consultations before bringing the provision into force.

  Operations (Private Hospitals)
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many operations were contracted out to private hospitals in Scotland, region by region; and at what cost during 1988.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is not collected centrally. However, the health boards which are making use of private sector facilities with support from the funds allocated to reduce waiting lists in 1988–89, the number of patients to be treated and the costs, are as follows:

  Health Board

  Specialty

  Patients

  Cost (£)

  Greater Glasgow

  Urology

  30

  20,000

  Orthopaedics

  113

  154,781

  Highland

  Orthopaedics

  12

  45,324

  Lanarkshire

  Urology

  10

  15,000

  Lothian

  Orthopaedics

  14

  57,282

  Ophthalmology

  8

  20,000

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Gynaecology

  39

  17,300

  Establishment

  Region

  A

  B

  C

  D

  Total

  Aberdeen

  Grampian

  2

  91

  57

  2

  152

  Barlinnie

  Strathclyde

  —

  840

  6

  —

  846

  Castle Huntly

  Tayside

  —

  —

  —

  118

  118

  Cornton Vale

  Central

  —

  36

  102

  13

  151

  Dumfries

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  96

  16

  —

  112

  Dungavel

  Strathclyde

  —

  —

  28

  84

  112

  Edinburgh

  Lothians

  1

  311

  265

  31

  608

  Friarton

  Tayside

  —

  —

  68

  9

  77

  Glenochil

  Central

  —

  177

  126

  —

  303

  Glenochil YOI

  Central

  —

  1

  97

  —

  98

  Greenock

  Strathclyde

  —

  143

  15

  —

  158

  Inverness

  Highland

  —

  67

  38

  —

  105

  Longriggend

  Strathclyde

  —

  178

  24

  —

  202

  Low Moss

  Strathclyde

  —

  —

  394

  —

  394

  Noranside

  Tayside

  —

  —

  —

  110

  110

  Penninghame

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  —

  73

  73

  Perth

  Tayside

  2

  313

  142

  6

  463

  Peterhead

  Grampian

  20

  101

  —

  —

  121

  Polmont

  Central

  —

  259

  94

  26

  379

  Shotts

  Strathclyde

  —

  350

  150

  1

  501

  Highland Regional Council (Structure Plan)
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to reject policy No. 53 of the Highland regional council's structure plan.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As Highland regional council's structure plan review is only at the consultative draft stage this proposed policy concerning skiing at Cairngorm has not yet been submitted to my right hon. and learned Friend for his approval. Only when the council has considered the representations submitted to it in response to its consultative draft will it formally submit the structure plan to my right hon. and learned Friend for 158
  Health boards which make use of private sector facilities do so if they are cost-effective or if there are constraints which prevent a board from increasing the number of patients they can treat in-house.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the breakdown of category A prisoners in Scotland under the groupings(a) convicted Irish Republican Army terrorists, (b) international terrorists, (c) murderers, (d) armed robbers, (e) rapists, (f) drug dealers, and (g) others (i) in total and (ii) listed by each prison.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information as at 30 March 1989 is as follows:

  Grouping

  Total

  Peterhead

  Prison Aberdeen

  Perth

  Murderers

  12

  10

  1

  1

  Armed Robbers

  3

  2

  0

  1

  Drug Dealers

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Others

  8

  7

  1

  0

  There are no category A prisoners in Scotland in the groupings (a), (b) or (e). The figures exclude one untried category A prisoner.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the numbers of category A, B and other prisoners in each prison in Scotland, listed by prison and by county address.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The numbers of prisoners in Scottish prisons listed by category, prison and region as at 24 March 1989 are:

  his approval. There is then a statutory period during which objections to the plan can he made. In view of the role which my right hon. and learned Friend will have to play in the future consideration of the plan he cannot at this stage comment on policy No. 53 in the consultative draft.

  Nurse Grading
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if nurses who commenced post-registration training on or after 1 April 1988 have the right of appeal over their recent clinical grading; and if he will make a statement.
  159
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  All nurses assimilated to the new clinical grading structure last year—including post-registration students—have the right to appeal under the agreed Whitley procedures.

  Porcine Somatotropin
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has concerning the use of porcine somatotropin in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Limited trials on the use of porcine somatotropin were carried out in Scotland up to 1988 under an animal test certificate (ATC) issued by MAFF. This ATC has now expired and, as no product licence has subsequently been issued, it would be illegal to sell or supply porcine somatotropin in Scotland, as it would be elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what Government-funded research into the sexual abuse of children(a) has taken place since 1979, (b) is currently taking place and (c) is under consideration, giving the cost of each project listed.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In recent years the Scottish Office has funded or contributed to the funding of three research projects on the subject of child abuse, two of which included aspects of child sexual abuse and a third which focused specifically on that problem. Details of the projects and their costs, and of further research currently under consideration, are as follows:

  Research undertaken since 1979

  1. Dr. A. Soddy and Mr. D. Gough: University of Glasgow, "Child abuse interventions: a review of the research literature". Total cost £23,000. (Funded by the Department of Health and Social Security with a Scottish Office contribution; project completed.)

  2. Dr. A. Boddy and Mr. D. Gough: University of Glasgow, "A longitudinal study of child abuse in Glasgow". Total cost £80,000. (Research completed; final report awaited.)

  Research currently taking place

  3. Mrs. L. Waterhouse: University of Edinburgh, "Management of intra-familial child sexual abuse". Total cost £69,400.

  4. A research brief inviting bids to undertake research into child sexual abuse, issued on 28 February 1989, has resulted in four proposals which are under consideration. Estimated cost £100,000.

  Sand Eels
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, pursuant to his reply of 6 February,Official Report, columns 561–562, he will state the critical level of spawning stock size for Shetland sand eels, below which recruitment will be affected by the abundance of spawning fish; and how this is estimated.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is not possible to state precisely the critical size of spawning stock required to protect recruitment from stock-related effects. However it seems unlikely that it is higher than the lowest recorded level that has produced average recruitment or better. For the Shetland stocks, that suggests a spawning stock biomass of around 20,000 tonnes.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment his Department has made as to whether 160
  the voluntary measures taken by Shetland fishermen to reduce catches of young sand eels are likely to conserve stocks of O group and I group sand eels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Estimates of the abundance of young O group sand eels are based on the accumulated catches of the respective year class in successive years, and it will therefore be two or three years before a full assessment of the effects of the voluntary measures is possible. Landing samples have revealed a very low incidence of very small sand eels in 1987 and 1988 catches but this could be due to the effects of the voluntary restrictions, or to low levels of recruitment of young sand eels, or to both.

  Recent scientific data support the earlier view that the decline in stocks is likely to be due primarily to recent low levels of recruitment rather than the effects of the fishery. However, given current concern about the health of the stocks, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland has today announced proposals to introduce statutory controls on sand eel fisheries in Scottish inshore waters. Comments on the proposals are being invited from interested parties.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the total catch by weight, fishing effort and proportions of both O group and 1 group fish, by weight, for the Minch sand eel fishery since 1980.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested for ICES division VIa (West of Scotland including the Minch) is as follows:

  Total catch (tones)

  Fishing effort (Days fishing)

  Percentage (by weight)

  O group

  1 Group

  1980

  180

  26

  30

  46

  1981

  5,972

  303

  21

  33

  1982

  10,786

  588

  15

  13

  1983

  13,051

  447

  34

  20

  1984

  14,166

  446

  13

  28

  1985

  18,586

  475

  22

  3

  1986

  24,469

  530

  21

  33

  1987

  14,479

  290

  11

  52

  1988

  24,465

  455

  3

  4

  Computer Consultants
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total amount spent by the Scottish Development Agency in 1988 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by the Scottish Development Agency in 1988, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment.

  Mr. Lang
  Expenditure by the Scottish Development Agency on management and computer consultancy contracts in the year to 31 March 1989 amounted to £5,925,311. This includes fees for research and development, advisory services, appraisal and administration, such as tax and accounting advice, pension and legal consultancies, as well as management and computer consultancies.

  A detailed breakdown comprising the names of companies which have been successfully tendered for contracts and the subject of these assignments cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate expense.

  "Working for Patients"
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total cost for the launch of the White Paper "Working for Patients", itemising as far as possible the cost in respect of each specific part.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on 16 February 1989.

  Ambulance Services
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has given any directive to the Common Services Agency in respect of competitive tendering for non-emergency ambulance services in Scotland; and what is his policy as to whether such services should be put out to private tender.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) on 20 July 1988 at column 509.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what change there has been in the demands upon the ambulance service in the Highlands and Islands following the recent changes in the Highland and Islands hospital patients travel scheme.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The demand for ambulance transport in the Highland and Western Isles area has shown a decline since the changes to the patients' travel expenses scheme, which came into effect on 11 April 1988.

  Woodland Grants
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions the Forestry Commission awarded grants under the broadleaved woodland grant scheme in Scotland, between the inception in 1985 and closure in 1988; and on how many occasions the grant of £100 was for obtaining professional advice in the preparation of a plan of operations under the broadleaved woodland grant scheme awarded.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  To date, the Forestry Commission has approved 1,257 applications for grant under the broadleaved woodland grant scheme in Scotland. The grant of 100 has been paid on 158 of these applications.

  New Towns
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the organisations and bodies which have responded to the consultation document, "The Scottish New Towns—Maintaining the Momentum."

  Mr. Lang
  The following are the organisations and bodies which have responded to the consultation document:

  Abron Community Council (Cumbernauld)

  Ardrossan, Saltcoats, Stevenston Enterprise Trust

  Ayrshire and Arran Health Board

  Ayrshire Chamber of Industries

  Barclay and Cameron Way Residents Association (Livingston)

  Bathgate Area Support for Enterprise Ltd (BASE)

  Beckman Industrial Ltd

  162

  Bellsquarry Community Council (Livingston)

  Broomlands and Bourtreehill Residents Assocition

  Busby East Church

  Calderwood Community Council

  Church of Scotland Department of Ministry and Mission

  City of Glasgow District Council

  Coleman Ballantine Architects, Glasgow

  Collydean Residents/Tenants Association (Glenrothes)

  Condorrat Community Council (Cumbernauld)

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  Craigshill Initiative (Livingston)

  Crofthead Farm Community Centre

  Cumbernauld Business Associations Cumbernauld Citizens Advice Bureau Cumbernauld Development Corporation

  Cumbernauld and District Trades Council

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth Constituency Association Scottish National Party

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth Constituency Labour Party

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth District Council

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth Enterprise Trust

  Cumbernauld Ministers' Fraternal

  Cumbernauld Theatre Trust Ltd

  Cunninghame District Council

  Deans Community High School (Livingston)

  Deans and District Labour Party (Livingston)

  Deans Senior Citizens' Club (Livingston)

  Dedridge Community Council (Livingston)

  Donaldsons

  Dreghorn (IDC) Tenants/Residents Association

  Dundee and Tayside Chamber of Commerce and industry, Fife Branch

  East Kilbride Central Branch, Scottish National Party

  East Kilbride Chamber of Commerce

  East Kilbride Christian Council

  East Kilbride Citizens Advice Bureau

  East Kilbride Development Corporation

  East Kilbride District Council

  East Kilbride Fabian Society

  East Kilbride Old Parish Church

  East Kilbride Residents Federation

  East Kilbride Voluntary Organisation's Council

  Fife Regional Council

  Fraser and Partner, Business Managers, Glenrothes

  Girdle Toll and Bourtreehill Community Council (Cumbernauld)

  Glenrothes Development Agency

  Glenrothes Development Corporation

  Glenrothes Enterprise Trust Ltd.

  Glenrothes Residents Council

  Greenhills East Resident Association

  Hamilton District Council

  Housing Architects Group Irvine Development Corporation

  Institute of Housing in Scotland

  Institute of Civil Engineers

  Inveralmond Community High School

  Irvine Development Corporation

  Kildrum Parish Church

  King and Co.

  Kirkcaldy District Council

  Knightsridge Community Council (Livingston)

  Knightsridge West Residents Association (Livingston)

  Labour Party Scottish Council

  Landscape Institute Scotland

  Livingston Constituency Labour Party

  Livingston Development Corporation

  Livingston East Branch, Scottish National Party

  Livingston Ecumenical Parish

  Livingston Federation of Residents and Tenants Association

  Livingston Industrial and Commercial Association

  Livingston Justice and Peace Group

  Livingston Voluntary Organisations Council

  Livingston YWCA

  Lothian Regional Council

  Motherwell District Council

  Murieston Residents' Association (Livingston)

  Murray Community Council

  National Mobility Office

  National and Local Government Officers Association (NALGO)

  163

  National and Local Government Officers Association—Cumbernauld

  Neighbourhood Care Networks (Livingston)

  Planning Section Livingston

  Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors

  ScotRail, British Railways Board

  Scottish Building Employers' Federation

  Scottish Church's Industrial Mission

  Scottish Community Woods Campaign

  Scottish Consumer Council

  Scottish Council for Single Homeless

  Scottish Democrats

  Scottish Development Agency

  Scottish Engineering Employers' Association

  Scottish Federation of Housing Associations

  Scottish Homes

  Scottish Local Authorities with New Towns (SLANT)

  Scottish National Party

  Scottish New Towns Housing Association

  Scottish New Towns Housing Managers Group

  Scottish Old Age Pensions Association

  Scottish Society of Directors of Planning

  Scottish Special Housing Association

  Scottish Trades Union Congress

  Scottish Wildlife Trust

  Sealand Industries PLC Cumbernauld

  Sixth Year Cumbernauld High School

  St. Mungos Parish Church

  Strathclyde Regional Council

  The Building Societies Association

  The Kirk Session of Livingston Old Parish

  The Royal Town Planning Institute

  Town and Country Planning Association

  West Lothian College of Further Education

  West Lothian District Council

  Whinneyknowe and Balgeddie Meadows Residents Association (Glenrothes)

  Local Health Councils
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to publish his proposals on the future of local health councils.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I shall make an announcement about the representation of consumer views in the NHS when consideration of the management consultants' report and other proposals and comments which have been received has been completed.

  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were(a) pupil-teacher ratios and (b) university staff-student ratios in Scotland in 1978–79 and 1987–88.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 23 March 1989]: The pupil-teacher ratios in education authority schools (nursery, primary, secondary and special) were 17·7 in 1978–79 and 16·1 in 1987–88. Universities throughout Great Britain are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

  Teaching Posts
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of teaching posts in(a) Scottish schools and (b) Scottish higher education in 1978, 1979, 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 23 March 1989]: Comprehensive information about the numbers of teaching posts is not available centrally.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Single Mothers (Income Support)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance is given to social security officers as to the age at which it is deemed appropriate for pre-school children of single mothers to be placed with child minders when assessing the mothers' eligibility for income support.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  None. There is no requirement for children of any age to be placed with child minders as a condition of receiving income support.

  Mr. George Metters
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he hopes to reply to letters dated 27 January and 7 February from the hon. Member for South Hams, in relation to his constituent Mr. George Metters of Marians' Maples, Stoke Gabriel, Totnes, Devon, and his claim for attendance allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  A reply was sent on 22 March.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) for the week starting 10 April, and each ensuing week, how many people currently in receipt of housing benefit transitional payments in the Leeds, West constituency will cease to become eligible; and what this is as a percentage of the total number of those claiming transitional payments in the constituency;

  (2) for the week starting 10 April, and each ensuing week, how many people currently in receipt of housing benefit transitional payments will cease to become eligible; and what this is as a percentage of the total number of those claiming transitional payments.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Until the closing date of 30 June 1989 is reached and all applications for housing benefit transitional payments have been received and assessed, it will not be possible to state how many people will no longer receive transitional payments from 10 April 1989 because of the £2 flat rate reduction, but we estimate that around 40 per cent. will no longer qualify for payments. The information requested is not available by constituency area.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have been paid housing benefit transitional payments; of these, how many will lose their transitional protection after 9 April because they have capital in excess of £8,000; and how many others will lose their transitional protection because the amount of their payments is less than £2 per week.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Up to 24 March 188,095 people had been awarded housing benefit transitional payments and payments have been made in 180,874 cases. Until the closing date of 30 June 1989 is reached and all applications have been received and assessed it will not be possible to state how many people will no longer receive transitional protection from 10 April because of the £2 flat rate reduction, but we estimate that around 40 per cent. will no longer qualify for payments. It will not be possible to say how many people will no longer qualify for transitional
  165
  protection because their capital has risen above £8,000 since April 1988 until all renewal application forms have been returned to the transitional payments unit.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing how many people were(a) eligible for and (b) in receipt of family credit in 1988–89, broken down into (i) employees and (ii)

  Employees

  Self-employed

  Total

  Eligible

  Receiving

  Receiving

  Receiving

  October 1987

  Forecast for 1988–891

  2675,000

  405,000

  45,000

  450,000

  March 1989

  Estimate for 1988

  500,000

  253,000 (actual)

  24,000 (actual)

  277,000 (actual)

  Notes:

  1 As revised to take account of the March 1988 Budget.

  2 No direct estimate of the eligible population was made in October 1987, when a projection of the 1988–89 caseload was made on the assumption that the take up rate would be one fifth higher than the FIS take up rate. However, an eligible employee population of 675,000 would follow from the assumption of a FIS take up rate of 50 per cent.

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the number of people receiving family credit; and how much he expects to spend on family credit in the financial year 1988–89.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  At the end of March 253,500 families were receiving family credit, and a further 47,000 claims were awaiting determination. The outturn of expenditure for 1988–89 is now expected to be slightly less than forecast in Cm. 615.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people would be entitled to family credit in 1989 if there was no compensation for free school meals or welfare milk in the child credit rates.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 20 March 1989]: A specific amount in respect of compensation for free school meals and free welfare milk and vitamins was included on a once-and-for-all basis in the child credit rates set at the start of the family credit scheme in April 1988 but, following the uprating, this element is no longer separately identifiable within the April 1989 rates. The information requested is therefore not available.

  Firm

  Subject of assignment

  Anderson Consulting

  Overseas Branch Computer Requirement

  Anderson Consulting

  Operational Strategy Training Development

  Anderson Consulting

  Benefit Branch Computerisation

  Answerpoint

  Local Office Project

  Applied Systems Engineering

  Local Office Project

  Applied Systems Engineering

  Service Management Group

  Applied Systems Engineering

  Central Design Authority

  Applied Systems Engineering

  Family Credit Project

  Arthur Young

  Integrated Complementing System

  Arthur Young

  Performance Based Systems

  Arthur Young

  Quality Assurance Package for Social Security Offices

  166
  self-employed, using the first assumption of eligibility and take-up made in October 1987 and the second assumption as described in his answer to the hon. Member for Bolton North-East (Mr. Thurnham), 17 March, Official Report, column 392.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information is shown in the table. Reliable estimates cannot be made of the numbers of self-employed people eligible for family credit.

  Computer Consultants
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total amount spent by his Department in 1988 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; and if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by his Department in 1988, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The estimated total amount spent by the Department in 1988 on social security-related management and computer consultancy was £35·391 million. The expenditure came partly from the combined DHSS budgets for the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89. Where appropriate the cost of projects has been apportioned when the work involved both social security and health aspects.

  Details of each consultancy awarded by the Department on social security-related matters are as follows:
  167

  Firm

  Subject of assignment

  Bell Software

  Local Office Project

  B.I.S. Limited

  Tools Feasibility Study

  B.I.S. Limited

  Database Design Support

  B.I.S. Limited

  Strategy Data Administration

  British Telecom

  Local Office Microcomputer Project

  Cap Industry Limited

  Local Office Project

  Cavendish Tricorne

  Overbearing Model (Operational Research Service)

  Computer Search

  National Unemployment Benefit System

  Computer People

  Local Office Project

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Department of Social Security Agency Study

  C.S.C.

  Product Assurance (North Fylde Central Office)

  C.S.C.

  Strategy Security

  Dataflex

  Local Office Microcomputer Project

  D. E. Barnard Systems

  Scrutiny of Printing and Publications

  Digitus

  Self Instruction Unit Computerisation

  ENATOR

  Performance Based Systems

  ENATOR

  Integrated Complementing System

  EOSYS

  Cable Management

  Falcon Systems

  Local Office Microcomputer Project

  Forvus

  Database Management System

  Gallup

  Staff Attitude Survey of Local Offices

  Gallup

  Staff Attitude Survey of Headquarters

  I.C.L.

  National Unemployment Benefit System

  I.C.L.

  Local Office Project

  Infologistix

  Capacity Planning (North Fylde Central Office)

  Jones Lang Wood

  Scrutiny of the Social Security Regional Organisation

  Logica

  Aggregate Performance Indicators

  Logica

  Scrutiny of the Social Security Regional Organisation

  L.B.M.S.

  Quality Assurance

  M.O.M.

  Program Information Control—Artemis

  M.F.T.

  Federal Budgetary Control System

  NESCO

  Local Office Project

  OASIS

  Superannuation Study (North Fylde Central Office)

  Oxford Centre for Management Studies

  Workload Experiment

  PACTEL

  Information Centre (Prototype)

  P.E. Computer Services

  Local Office Project

  Peat Marwick McLintock

  Analysis of Questionnaires for Scrutiny of Overseas Branch and for Contributions and Compiiance Study

  Peat Marwick McLintock

  Performance Based Systems

  Peat Marwick McLintock

  Integrated Complementing System

  168 169

  Firm

  Subject of assignment

  Price Waterhouse

  Financial Management

  Price Waterhouse

  Integrated Complementing System

  Price Waterhouse

  Disaster Planning

  Price Waterhouse

  Career Development

  Price Waterhouse

  Integrated Complementing System

  Protocol

  Service Management (North Fylde Central Office)

  Resources

  Local Office Project

  R.E.L.

  Tempest Testing

  Rowe and Maw

  Model Rules for Guaranteed Minimum Pensions in Occupational Pension Schemes

  S.B.S.

  National Unemployment Benefit System

  Scopec

  Program Information Controls

  S.D.S.

  Local Office Project

  Slaughter and May

  Model Rules for Guaranteed Minimum Pensions in Occupational Pension Schemes

  Systems Designers

  Performance Based Systems Regional Trials

  Task Force

  Local Office Project

  Task Force

  Monitoring Income Support

  Task Force

  National Unemployment Benefit System

  Telfast

  Local Office Project

  Touche Ross

  Recovery of Social Security Benefits from Tort Damage Awards

  Touche Ross

  Performance Based Systems

  Touche Ross

  Financial Information Strategy Study

  Touche Ross

  Integrated Complementing System

  V.N.G.

  Local Office Project

  W.S. Atkins

  Communications Wiring Building Survey

  Community Care
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what percentage of total budget of the Neasden integrated local office has been spent on community care grants;

  (2) how many community care grant applications have been made and refused at the Neasden integrated local office;

  (3) how much has been allocated for the 1989–90 budget from the social fund for community care grants at the Neasden integrated local office;

  (4) how many social fund loans applications have been made and refused at the Neasden integrated local office.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information on the numbers of applications for social fund loans and grants processed and awarded, listed by local office, including information on budget allocations and expenditure, may be obtained from the details held in the Library.
  170
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the assumptions and bases on which the social fund community care grants budgets for the Department of Social Security ILOs of Redcar, Eston, Middlesbrough, Hartlepool and Stockton were set for the year 1989–90; and if he will give the reasons why four of these offices have received a lower budget than for the current financial year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The note that I placed in the Library on 22 February in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) at column 682 explains the basis on which the social fund allocations for 1988–89 were made.

  The combined effect of the three components in the allocation formula ((i) 1988–89 allocations; (ii) income support caseload; (iii) value of awards and the estimated value of refusals for budgetary reasons) means that some offices will gain in 1989–90 in comparison with their 1988–89 allocations and some will lose.
  171
  The allocation formula was applied in the same way to all local offices.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will consider reducing the minimum award of social fund community care grant and budgeting loan payments in respect of fuel reconnection charges, in order to bring the minimum social fund awards into line with the typical reconnection charge.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No, we believe that the existing arrangements already provide the necessary help.

  People on income support are provided with a sum of money within which to budget for their everyday needs, in the same way as others on low incomes. Budgeting loans and community care grants are intended to help with larger items of expenditure. We consider £30 a reasonable sum for a person to accumulate from their benefit.

  If a person runs into difficulties in meeting his fuel bills the Department can arrange to pay a certain amount of his income support direct to the fuel board so as to avoid disconnection. Where, however, a disconnection has taken place help is available in the form of a crisis loan which may be made if it is the only means of avoiding a risk to health and safety.

  Claim Forms
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements have been made for local authorities and advice groups to receive bulk copies of his Department's claim forms.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There are no arrangements for local authorities and advice groups to receive bulk copies of the Department's claim forms. All claim forms are readily available from the Department's local offices. Additionally, those for family credit and income support can be obtained from Post Offices. Social fund application form SF100, (maternity payment) is available from ante-natal clinics, and SF200 (funeral payment) is available from registrars.

  Kidney Failure (Benefits)
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what benefits a person who suffers kidney failure and is forced to give up work will currently receive; what level of benefits applied to a person in a similar situation before April 1988; what special allowances existed for items, including food, heating, laundry and baths for such people before April 1988; and what equivalent benefits are now available.

  Mr. Scott
  People who become incapable of work due to kidney failure whose contract of service with their employer continues would usually be entitled to statutory sick pay from the fourth consecutive day of incapacity. Where the employment terminates, the person is self-employed, or statutory sick pay is not payable for any reason, sickness benefit would be payable instead, provided that the usual contribution conditions were satisfied. After 28 weeks of incapacity, invalidity benefit replaces sickness benefit automatically. It would also replace statutory sick pay in cases where the contribution conditions for sickness benefit would have been satisfied at the beginning of the incapacity. In addition to these benefits, people suffering with renal failure who require 172
  help dialysing for at least two occasions a week, either at home, as an in-patient in a private hospital or in a self-care unit may qualify for lower rate attendance allowance. There has been no change in the level of any of these benefits since April 1988 other than the usual uprating.

  Depending on their circumstances people with renal failure may also receive income support, which replaced supplementary benefit in April 1988. The level of supplementary benefit paid reflected the individual's circumstances such as size of family, if any, housing costs, special needs, and other income. There was no fixed level of benefit for any claimant. The only special allowance particular to people with renal failure was a dietary addition. All other special allowances, for example, for heating, laundry and baths were available to all claimants on the same terms. The system of special allowances has been replaced by one of flat rate premiums. The disability premium is available to people receiving attendance allowance, mobility allowance or supplement, invalidity benefit or severe disablement benefit. It is also available to people with an invalid carriage, those registered blind and those incapable of work for 28 weeks or more. In addition attendance allowance recipients who live alone qualify for the severe disability premium, providing no-one is receiving invalid care allowance for their care.

  Young People (Benefits)
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what effects of the changes to young people's benefits, introduced in April and September 1988, his Department is monitoring;

  (2) how his Department is monitoring the effects of the 1988 benefits changes on young people aged 16 and 17 years and 18 to 24 years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Department is monitoring all the effects of the 1988 benefit changes on young people through the usual statistical sources, and through representations made by local authorities, voluntary organisations and other groups concerned with young people. As a result of his monitoring a package of measures to assist those of this group identified as having particular difficulties was announced in my hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) on 13 March at columns 27–28.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the latest estimates of(a) how many young people aged 16 and 17 years have applied for discretionary payments of income support in order to avoid severe hardship, (b) how many young people have been awarded such payments, (c) what is the average time taken from the point of application to the point of payment of such awards and (d) what is the average duration of such awards.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  During the period 12 September 1988, when general entitlement to income support was withdrawn from 16 and 17-year-olds, to 23 March 1989 a total of 6,027 decisions were made under the Secretary of State's discretionary power to avoid severe hardship. A direction to enable income support to be paid was given in 3,908 instances. These figures relate to the number of decisions made, not to the number of young people involved. Some young people have made more than one application. Processing times are not available for these cases separately from other income support claims, but the
  173
  commitment to make decisions within 24 hours of the full details of the case being referred to headquarters has been met. The length of direction given in each case is normally linked to an estimate of when a YTS place is likely to be available for the young person concerned. Information to calculate the average durations of directions is not collected.

  Income Support
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what circumstances single parents in receipt of income support have to make themselves available for work; and whether he has any plans to require that single parents in receipt of income support whose youngest child reaches the age of 12 years will have to make themselves available for work.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Single parents claiming income support have to be available for work only if there is no child under 16 living as a member of the household. We have no plans to change that.

  AIDS
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) whether people with HIV on income support qualify for any specific benefits related to the needs caused by their HIV antibody status;

  (2) if he is intending to review the six month qualification period necessary to receive the disability premium for people with HIV infection on income support.

  Mr. Scott
  People whose HIV antibody status renders them incapable of work can qualify for the income support disability premiums on the same basis as all other sick and disabled people. There are no benefits specifically for people with HIV. But those who receive payments from the Macfarlane trust receive the full benefit of such payments, which are disregarded in the calculation of their income support entitlement. We have given a commitment to review the qualifying conditions for the disability, and other, premiums in the light of our continued monitoring of the scheme and the results of the OPCS surveys into disabilities.

  Nursing Homes (Elderly People)
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he is taking to reduce the gap between Government funds provided for elderly residents of nursing homes and the cost of their accommodation.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 21 March 1989]: Under income support, payments can be made to people in nursing homes to help them meet the fees, subject to maximum limits.

  From 10 April the limits are being increased. Elderly people in nursing homes will be able to claim up to £190 per week, or up to £213 in London, plus a personal expenses allowance of £10·05.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has for the privatisation of water supplies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The Government have no present plans to privatise water supplies in Northern Ireland.

  Queen's University
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many part-time courses are available at Queen's university, Belfast.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A total of 590 part-time courses were available during the 1987–88 academic year.

  Goat Milk
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce measures to control the standard of hygiene of goat milk production.

  Mr. Viggers
  The Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland will shortly be issuing an agreed code of practice on the hygienic production of goats' milk.

  Life Imprisonment
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) republican and (b) loyalist prisoners serving sentences of life imprisonment or at the Secretary of State's pleasure have been reviewed since January 1988; and how many have been released.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The information requested is set out in the following table.

  Indeterminate sentence prisoners reviewed, recommended for release and released since January 1988 by believed paramilitary affiliation at the time of their offence

  Number

  'Loyalist' cases reviewed

  106

  Number recommended for release

  52

  'Republican' cases reviewed

  86

  Number recommended for release

  40

  'Loyalist' prisoners released

  19

  'Republican' prisoners released

  8

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) republican and (b) loyalist prisoners serving sentences of life imprisonment or at the Secretary of State's pleasure who have been reviewed and put back for further review are to be reconsidered in (i) one, (ii) two, (iii) three, (iv) four and (v) five years.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The information requested is set out in the following table.
  175

  Indeterminate sentence prisoners who have been reviewed by the life sentence review board and deferred to be reconsidered in 1–5 years from the time of the last review. By believed paramilitary affiliation at time of offence

  0–1 Year

  1–2 Years

  2–3 Years

  3–4 Years

  4–5 Years

  Republican

  13

  15

  14

  14

  32

  Loyalist

  4

  18

  14

  18

  10

  Wildlife Poisoning
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for each of the last five years the number of cases of wildlife poisoning in Northern Ireland caused by the illegal use of pesticides or poisons; and if he will identify the species involved and if possible the poison or pesticide involved.

  Mr. Needham
  The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland is not aware of any cases of wildlife poisoning where the illegal use of pesticides or poisons has been proven.

  However, in 1986 the death of one peregrine falcon was probably caused by high levels of the pesticides DDT and DDE. In 1986 another peregrine falcon and a sparrowhawk died, possibly through ingesting pesticides, and in 1987 a further sparrowhawk died from what may have been the same cause. In these cases it is not possible to state how or where the birds ingested these substances.

  Neither DDT nor DDE were illegal prior to 1 January 1988 when the Control of Pesticides Regulations (NI) 1987 came into operation.

  A case earlier this year of about 100 feral pigeons dying through ingesting alpha-chloralose (a stupefying bait) is being investigated. The deliberate use of alpha-chloralose against wild birds is illegal except under licence.

  Social Security Payments
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many families in Northern Ireland were in receipt of family income supplement in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Needham
  The number was 14,415 families at 1 March 1988.

  Elderly People (Residential Homes)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will call for a report from the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland on the extent to which social security payments and state pensions are adequate to meet the costs of elderly people in private residential homes; and as to the extent of the practice of using residents' pocket money to meet the extra costs of staying in such homes.

  Mr. Needham
  Information is not held centrally about the numbers of residents in private homes for persons in need whose charges exceed the amounts of their benefits and who may use their personal expenses allowance towards the excess. From 10 April 1989, the relevant income support limits will range from £140 to £200 a week.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has as to the average income of an elderly person in a residential home in Northern Ireland, excluding any private source of income.

  Mr. Needham
  None.
  176
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the latest available information that he has as to the costs of maintaining a resident in(a) a private residential home for the elderly in Northern Ireland, (b) a residential home for the elderly run by a social services board and (c) a private nursing home in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  Information is available only on(b) the average cost, excluding capital and central administration costs, being some £162 a week in the year ended 31 March 1988.

  Rates
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the average percentage increase in the regional rates levied by the Department of Environment for Northern Ireland in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Needham
  The regional rate, which is struck by the Department of Finance and Personnel each February, has increased as follows in each of the last three years.

  Per cent.

  1987–88

  2·9

  1988–89

  7·98

  1989–90

  12·63

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the average percentage increase in rates struck by district councils in Northern Ireland in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Needham
  The average percentage increase in rates struck by district councils in Northern Ireland over the last three years is as follows:

  Per cent.

  1987–8

  4·98

  1988–9

  4·26

  1989–90

  2·36

  Married Teachers
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for how long married women teachers have been paying exactly the same contributions from salary as married male teachers for pension and benefit purposes.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  All teachers, whether male or female, married or single, have paid similar basic percentage contributions since the introduction of the teachers' superannuation scheme in the 1920s.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether contributions for pensions and benefits already paid by married women teachers prior to 6 April 1988 require to be supplemented by buying back all or part of previous service to provide equality of pension and benefit provision for a widower with that to which the widow of a teacher is entitled.
  177
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Married women teachers may, by making the appropriate payments, have all or part of their service prior to 6 April 1988 counted for widowers' pension purposes.

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show for each year from 1976 to 1988, the number of (a) shotguns, (b) rifles, (c) handguns, (d) air and gas-powered weapons held on firearms certificates in Northern Ireland or as much of such information as is available to him.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 23 March 1989]: The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  (a) Shotguns

  (b) Rifles

  (c) Handguns

  (d) Air Weapons

  1976

  67,148

  13,877

  10,189

  11,830

  1977

  69,525

  13,914

  10,322

  12,112

  1978

  71,119

  13,834

  9,978

  12,491

  1979

  72,843

  13,839

  9,946

  13,362

  1980

  74,836

  13,550

  10,257

  14,450

  1981

  76,087

  13,765

  10,184

  15,103

  (a) Police officers and ranks

  Superintendent

  Chief Inspector

  Inspector

  Sergeant

  Constable

  1976

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1977

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1978

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1979

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1980

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1981

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1982

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1983

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1984

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1985

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1986

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1987

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1988

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Note: Figures are not available for 1976 and 1977.

  Pay

  Year1

  Salaries

  Overtime and Allowances

  Superannuation and ERNI

  Total Cost of Remuneration

  (£'000s)

  (£'000s)

  (£'000s)

  (£'000s)

  1976–77

  64·3

  19·8

  21·5

  105·6

  1977–78

  72·3

  15·3

  24·6

  112·2

  1978–79

  98·6

  16·1

  31·7

  146·4

  1979–80

  102·8

  14·5

  32·9

  150·2

  1980–81

  132·2

  17·2

  41·9

  191·3

  1981–82

  143·2

  17·2

  45·2

  205·6

  1982–83

  159·8

  26·4

  51·2

  237·4

  1983–84

  181·0

  28·2

  59·5

  268·7

  1984–85

  183·1

  34·1

  61·3

  278·5

  1985–86

  243·8

  30·6

  75·9

  350·3

  1986–87

  272·1

  24·3

  83·4

  379·8

  1987–88

  315·0

  26·9

  90·7

  432·6

  1 Pay calculated on basis of financial year, 1 April to 31 March.

  Year

  (i) Firearm Certificates Granted

  (ii) Firearm Certificates Renewed

  (iii) Firearm Certificates Varied

  1976

  5,116

  15,361

  9,283

  1977

  5,484

  13,065

  9,539

  1978

  4,318

  28,710

  6,465

  1979

  4,389

  19,121

  10,278

  1980

  4,362

  14,201

  8,934

  1981

  3,639

  29,704

  9,140

  1982

  4,297

  21,685

  9,246

  178

  Year

  (a) Shotguns

  (b) Rifles

  (c) Handguns

  (d) Air Weapons

  1982

  77,392

  13,691

  10,288

  15,635

  1983

  78,587

  13,691

  10,246

  16,071

  1984

  79,845

  13,654

  10,188

  16,659

  1985

  81,247

  13,642

  10,238

  17,240

  1986

  82,601

  13,596

  10,427

  17,701

  1987

  82,554

  13,414

  10,566

  17,858

  1988

  82,913

  13,321

  10,752

  18,114

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show how many (a) police officers by rank and (b) civilian staff by grade have been engaged at police headquarters in processing firearms certificates for each year since 1976 to the latest available date; what has been the total costs of remunerating such staff in each year; in each year how many firearms certificates were (i) issued, (ii) renewed, and (iii) varied; how many applications were refused for (a) issues of a new certificate, (b) renewals and (c) variation; and how many certificates were withdrawn.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 23 March 1989: The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  (i) Firearm Certificates Granted

  (ii) Firearm Certificates Renewed

  (iii) Firearm Certificates Varied

  1983

  3,714

  17,016

  7,748

  1984

  4,011

  30,066

  8,574

  1985

  4,222

  22,463

  7,082

  1986

  3,895

  17,933

  7,197

  1987

  3,743

  29,296

  8,903

  1988

  3,672

  22,164

  8,800

  179

  Year

  (a) Refused to grant new firearm certificate

  (b) Refused to renew firearm certificate

  (c) Refused to vary firearm certificate

  Firearm certificate revoked

  1976

  281

  49

  510

  192

  1977

  293

  58

  504

  23

  1978

  229

  48

  428

  100

  1979

  267

  92

  331

  101

  1980

  294

  79

  387

  123

  1981

  360

  79

  390

  103

  1982

  377

  78

  439

  124

  1983

  336

  79

  389

  157

  1984

  313

  88

  465

  154

  1985

  326

  61

  374

  178

  1986

  308

  43

  320

  147

  1987

  308

  53

  420

  146

  1988

  262

  62

  471

  148

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many rifles held on firearms certificates in Northern Ireland are of ·22 calibre; and how many are of larger calibre; and how many in each category are held under the condition, possession only.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 23 March 1989]: The information requested is as follows:

  Total Numbers

  Possession only

  Rifles of ·22 calibre

  12,146

  974

  Rifles of larger calibre

  1,175

  786

  Note: Figures refer to 31 December 1988.

  Special Category Prisoners
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information is available to indicate how many prisoners gave up special category status in each of the past four years; for how many of these prisoners the

  Year

  Numbers relinquishing special category status

  Numbers who went to LSRB within 1 year

  Number of reviews since relinquishing special category status

  Release dates set

  Referred to judiciary

  Deferred (by number of years)

  Numbers released

  0–1

  1–2

  2–3

  1985

  19

  9

  6 and 1 review

  2

  12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7 and 2 reviews

  1 had 3 reviews

  1 had 4 reviews

  4 had NIL reviews

  —see note below

  1986

  23

  6

  5 had 1 review

  15

  11

  5

  —

  1

  3

  5 had 2 reviews

  13 had no reviews

  —see note below

  1987

  5

  1

  1 had 2 reviews

  8

  10

  6

  3

  —

  16

  4 had no reviews

  —see note below

  1988–89

  3

  NIL

  None have had a review

  8

  10

  2

  3

  —

  9

  Note: The 24 prisoners who relinquished Special Category status in the four years 23 March 1985–22 March 1989 and have not since been reviewed were all recommended for consultation with the judiciary prior to their decision to relinquish Special Category status.

  Statistical Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the latest figures for the number of staff presently employed, and the full complement of staff including vacant posts, by grade, in the statistical divisions
  180
  case went to the life sentence review board within a year of giving up their status; how many reviews these prisoners have had; how many in each year (a) were given release dates, (b) had their cases referred to the judiciary, and (c) had their cases referred back for further review after one year, two years or three years; and how many have been released.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 23 March 1989]: No fixed sentence prisoners have relinquished their special category status in the last four years. Fifty indeterminate sentence prisoners have relinquished their special category status since March 1985, of whom 28 have been released and 15 either have provisional release dates or are at consultation with the judiciary with a view to setting dates. The remaining seven prisoners all transferred to segregated "Republican" or "Loyalist" wings after relinquishing their special category status and have remained in segregated accommodation. The detailed information requested is set out in the following table.

  in the Northern Ireland Office; if he will differentiate between staff in statistical posts and staff in administrative posts; and if he will give the staffing complements by grade, and differentiated between statistical and administrative posts, proposed for 1989–90.
  181
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 13 March 1989]: The Northern Ireland Office has one statistical division which is located in Belfast. The division has a complement of nine, which consists of three specialist grades (one principal economist, one deputy economist, one senior assistant economist) and six administrative grades (two executive officers, two administrative officers, two administrative assistants), a programmer is also attached to the division on loan.

  The division is fully up to strength and the complement is not expected to change in the foreseeable future.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the total fees paid out by his Department to management consultants in 1979–80 and each year to date; and what is the estimate for the current year.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 13 March 1989]: The information for 1979–80 to 1983–84 is available throughout Northern Ireland Departments only at disproportionate cost. Information for the year 1984–85 to date is as follows:

  £

  1984–85

  2,352,311

  1985–86

  2,427,200

  1986–87

  2,742,192

  1987–88

  3,363,213

  1988–89

  13,273,430

  1 Estimate.

  In addition, the Northern Ireland Office and the Department of Finance and Personnel jointly shared the cost of a review of the Northern Ireland information services carried out in 1988. The review cost approximately £8,000.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish in the Official Report

  (b) (i) The number, and percentage of register, of establishments checked in 1988 and those found to be underpaying are as follows:

  Wages Council

  Establishments

  Number checked by all methods

  Per cent. of register

  Number checked by visit

  Per cent. of register

  Number found to be underpaying

  Per cent. of register

  Baking

  78

  22·9

  78

  22·9

  16

  4·7

  Boot and shoe repairing

  21

  21·0

  21

  21·0

  1

  1·0

  Catering

  583

  13·0

  488

  10·9

  68

  1·5

  Clothing manufacturing

  27

  15·8

  27

  15·8

  12

  7·0

  Laundry

  6

  40·0

  6

  40·0

  —

  —

  Linen and cotton handkerchief and household goods and linen piece goods

  19

  38·8

  19

  38·8

  2

  4·1

  Paper box

  5

  29·4

  5

  29·4

  —

  —

  Road haulage

  310

  12·2

  296

  11·7

  13

  0·5

  Sugar confectionery and food preserving

  4

  13·8

  4

  13·8

  —

  —

  NORTHERN IRELAND TOTALS

  1,053

  13·6

  944

  12·2

  112

  1·4

  182
  (a) the number and percentage of establishments and services covered by wages councils in 1979 and 1988, (i) by wages council and (ii) nationally, (b) the number, and percentage of register, of establishments and workers (i) checked by all methods and (ii) visited and the number and percentage in (i) and (ii) found to be illegally underpaying, nationally and by wages council, (c) the number and percentage of registers of establishments found to be illegally underpaying and prosecuted in each year from 1979 to 1988, and (d) the number of inspectors employed by wages council and nationally, in each year from 1979 to 1988.

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 22 March 1989]: The information requested is:
  (a) The number and percentage of establishments covered by wages councils in Northern Ireland in 1979 and 1988 are as follows:

  Wages Council

  1979

  Per cent.

  1988

  Per cent.

  Baking

  255

  4·0

  341

  4·4

  Boot and Shoe Repairing

  29

  0·5

  100

  1·3

  Catering

  3,825

  60·6

  4,469

  57·9

  Clothing Manufacturing

  —

  —

  171

  2·2

  Dressmaking and Women's Light Clothing1

  122

  2·0

  —

  —

  Laundry

  17

  0·3

  15

  0·2

  Linen and Cotton Handkerchief and Household goods and Linen Piece goods

  84

  1·3

  49

  0·6

  Paper Box

  17

  0·3

  17

  0·2

  Ready made and Wholesale Bespoke1 Tailoring

  58

  0·9

  —

  —

  Retail Bespoke Tailoring2

  4

  0·1

  —

  —

  Road Haulage

  1,756

  27·8

  2,536

  32·8

  Shirtmaking1

  85

  1·3

  —

  —

  Sugar Confectionery and Food Preserving

  55

  0·9

  29

  0·4

  Northern Ireland Totals

  6,307

  100

  7,727

  100

  1 These wages councils were abolished in 1982 and one new wages councils (Clothing Manufacturing Wages Council) was established in their place.

  2 This wages council was abolished in 1981.

  183

  (b) (ii) The number, and percentage of register, of workers checked in 1988 and the number found to be underpaid are as follows:

  Wages Council

  Workers

  Number checked by all methods

  Per cent. of register

  Number checked by visit

  Per cent. of register

  Number found to be underpaying

  Per cent. of register

  Baking

  283

  29·5

  283

  29·5

  17

  1·8

  Boot and shoe repairing

  23

  30·7

  23

  30·7

  2

  2·7

  Catering

  2,785

  17·4

  2,385

  14·9

  104

  0·7

  Clothing manufacturing

  1,537

  14·0

  1,537

  14·0

  118

  1·1

  Laundry

  29

  10·0

  29

  10·0

  —

  —

  Linen and cotton handkerchief and household goods and linen piece goods

  612

  46·5

  612

  46·5

  2

  0·2

  Paper box

  217

  25·2

  217

  25·2

  —

  —

  Road haulage

  982

  18·2

  771

  14·3

  15

  0·3

  Sugar confectionery and food preserving

  23

  14·8

  23

  14·8

  —

  —

  NORTHERN IRELAND TOTALS

  6,491

  18·0

  5,880

  16·3

  258

  0·7

  (c) The number and percentage of register of establishments found to be underpaying since 1982 are as follows:

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Wages Council

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Baking

  12

  4·8

  8

  3·0

  5

  1·9

  11

  4·0

  14

  3·3

  9

  2·4

  16

  4·7

  Boot and Shoe Repairing

  1

  3·2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1·0

  Catering

  16

  0·5

  17

  0·5

  32

  1·0

  28

  0·9

  35

  0·8

  76

  1·5

  68

  1·5

  Clothing Manufacturing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  2·9

  1

  0·8

  6

  4·7

  10

  5·4

  12

  7·0

  Dressmaking and Women's Light Clothing1

  —

  —

  1

  1·9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Laundry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  8·3

  1

  7·1

  —

  —

  Linen and Cotton Handkerchief and Household Goods and Linen Piece Goods

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2·0

  —

  —

  1

  2·2

  2

  4·2

  2

  4·1

  Paper Bfox

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ready Made and Wholesale Bespoke1 Tailoring

  —

  —

  1

  3·3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Road Haulage

  9

  0·6

  6

  0·4

  10

  0·8

  5

  0·4

  7

  0·4

  6

  0·3

  13

  0·5

  Shirtmaking1

  —

  —

  1

  2·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sugar Confectionery and Food Preserving

  1

  2·4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northern Ireland Totals

  39

  0·7

  34

  0·7

  52

  1·0

  45

  0·9

  64

  0·9

  104

  1·3

  112

  1·4

  Notes:

  These Wages Councils were abolished in 1982 and one new Wages Council (Clothing Manufacturing Wages Council) was established in their place. Figures are not available for the period prior to 1982. There have been no paaaacutions in this period.

  (d) Since 1979 there have been two wages inspectors employed to enforce wages councils orders in Northern Ireland.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary-Gardai Meetings
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether meetings between officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and Gardai about border security take place, turn about, at rendezvous north and south of the Border; and how many meetings have taken place since the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Meetings take place frequently both in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland, but no record is kept of the number of meetings which have taken place.

  Election Expenses
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing how much a candidate may expend for election purposes in the local government elections this year for each district electoral area in each council area in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  No. As in the rest of the United Kingdom it is for individual candidates to satisfy themselves that their expenses are kept within the limits prescribed.

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

North Cyprus Posters: LRT Policy
Lord Willis Lord Willis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether posters advertising holidays in north Cyprus were withdrawn from the London Underground system after bomb threats had been received and if so what action they propose to take.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I understand that London Regional Transport withdrew the posters because of complaints demonstrating a conflict with terms of the contract providing that:
"No posters will be displayed if they are likely to offend the general travelling public or to offend ethnic, religious or other major groups".
The Government do not intend to intervene in discussions proceeding between London Regional Transport and Mosaic Holidays.
Lord Willis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, is it not true that the posters were withdrawn as a result of bomb threats and that London Regional Transport, as I understand it, received something like 10 or 12 letters, one of which at least contained a bomb threat? Further, have the Government formed an attitude on the matter?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, some of the telephone complaints received implied a threat of violence and one anonymous caller used words to the effect that there could be a bomb on the Underground if nothing was done. That threat was not judged to be serious. However, some posters were defaced and LRT considered that there was a risk of incidents endangering passenger safety.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his reply gives the impression of being a bromide on something which is much more important than that? Is he aware that this is a case where the organisation accepted the advertisement as being perfectly correct and that it was only after the receipt of letters containing threats that it decided arbitrarily to alter the arrangements which had been made for the display? Is my noble friend further aware that those of us who happened to be in northern Cyprus at the time when the matter was disclosed saw at first hand the dismay which was felt there? Does he also realise the dangers which could flow if the world thinks that an important organisation in this country is prepared to be
1004
diverted from doing what it thinks to be right because of a threat?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I understand that when London Transport Advertising accepted the advertisement in the first place it did not foresee the political significance of the reference to northern Cyprus, nor did it foresee the threats which might be received.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, are we to understand from the Minister's reply that London Regional Transport did not seek anyone's advice before it took this action? If that is so, will the Government give some advice to LRT as to what action it should take if there should be a renewal of this kind of threat? Further, if the threats are taken seriously, what action will the Government take to ensure that London Regional Transport reviews its staffing policy to make sure that there is adequate staff in all London Underground stations?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, this is of course a contractual matter between London Transport Advertising and the advertiser. Early discussions are being arranged between the parties with the aim of finding a solution which meets the advertising needs of Mosaic Holidays and the terms and conditions of London Transport Advertising, to which I referred in my original Answer.
So far as concerns staffing on the Underground, I really think that that question is a little wide of the original one on the Order Paper.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, does not the Government's action, on the face of it, look like a surrender to both terrorism and vandalism?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: No, my Lords; there is no question of that. The primary consideration was that the reference to northern Cyprus was causing offence to a significant group of passengers. I understand that London Transport Advertising often rejects campaigns on those grounds.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is this not a Catch 22 situation? If LRT had completely ignored everything and continued with the poster campaign and ultimately a bomb had gone off with people being killed, there would have been a heck of a row. Indeed, I am willing to bet that the Government would have been blamed for it.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I must say that I have to agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, says. There would almost certainly have been a great deal more of a row if something of that nature had happened than there is now as a result of what did happen.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, that being so, would the Minister also agree that that really gives the lie to his previous answer that it was only a matter of contract? Surely it is a great deal more than a matter of commercial contract.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, no. As I said, the reason London Transport withdrew the posters was that part of the contract stipulated:
"No posters will be displayed if they are likely to offend the general travelling public or to offend ethnic, religious or other major groups".
That is why the posters were withdrawn.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that the whole island of Cyprus, both north and south, is sacred to the Goddess Aphrodite, who is the Goddess of Love and therefore presumably not of bombs?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Not that kind of love!
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I was not aware of that fact. However, I shall take my noble friend's word for it.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, in view of the reference to ethnic or other groups, if Mrs. Whitehouse's organisation should object to the posters about pregnancy which appear all over the London Underground will the authorities then decide to withdraw them because they give offence to her—although I am quite certain that she will not be threatening to bomb the Underground?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I think that every case must be dealt with on its own merits.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am sorry to come back on this point, but the Minister said that the bomb threats were not taken seriously. If that is so, on what basis was that decision taken? From what body did London Regional Transport seek advice before taking that decision?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I said that the bomb threat was not judged to be serious. That is true. However, some of the posters were defaced and London Regional Transport considered that there was a risk of incidents endangering passenger safety.
Lord Lovell-Davis: My Lords, I hold no brief for either side in the present unhappy situation which exists in Cyprus, but I am concerned, as I believe is every Member of the House, with terrorist threats here. Will the Minister tell the House whether records of similar threats made to advertisers or organisations displaying advertisements exist, and whether the Government issue specific advice and guidance as to how companies should react when they are subjected to such threats?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am sure that we would give advice if threats were received. If they needed to be taken seriously, we should be bound to give advice on them.
Lord Newall: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the case of Mr. Salman Rushdie the Government paid a great deal of attention to threats and such things? Why, because this matter did not receive
1006
as much publicity, are they taking a completely different point of view?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with respect to my noble friend, we are not taking a different point of view. London Regional Transport has clearly stated terms in its contract. If those terms are breached, it is entitled to withdraw the posters.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that London Regional Transport accepted the advertisement in the first place, and must therefore have thought that the terms were such that it was safe and proper to accept it?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I believe I said earlier, London Regional Transport did not understand or foresee the political significance in the reference to northern Cyprus.
Lord Willis: My Lords, surely there is a difference here. Does the Minister agree that the Government have no responsibility for London Transport and no responsibility for publishing and writing, and yet they came out in the strongest possible terms against the threat to Salman Rushdie? Here was a threat to the travelling public, and the Government are silent on it. Is the Minister aware that when the Salman Rushdie case occurred the Prime Minister insisted that freedom of speech was essential and could not be threatened by force? Will the Government therefore make the strongest representation to London Regional Transport, and other similar bodies and say that it is not the policy of the Government and the country to give in to threats of violence?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I can agree with the latter part of the noble Lord's question: it is not the Government's policy to give in to threats of violence. In my original Answer I quoted the passage from London Regional Transport's contract as to where an advertisement might offend ethnic, religious or other major groups. If it felt that the advertisement fell within those terms, that is why it was turned down.

Coal: Import Policy
2.47 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on the import of coal.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, it has never been this Government's policy to restrict imports of coal. We believe that the purchase of coal, whether imported or indigenous, is a matter for the commercial judgment of individual customers.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, in view of the huge increase in the importing of coal and the usual difficulties associated with any imports, how much importance do the Government place upon the 200 years' coal reserves which we have in this

1007
country, at the present rate of extraction, to ensure supplies in the future? If, as the Minister seems to suggest, the Government are concerned, entirely or mainly, about price, what does she have to say about the fact that much of the imported coal comes from countries which have labour conditions, including the use of child labour, which would be intolerable in this country?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government are giving, and will continue to give, their steady support to British Coal's drive to restructure the industry and to make itself competitive internationally. The Government have faith in the industry's future, and that has been demonstrated by our financial support. However, while the Government maintain a large investment programme, in the longer term, once British Coal is financially stronger, it is our intention that the corporation should take full financial responsibility for all its new restructuring costs.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is not the solution to be found in encouraging British Coal to become more competitive?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I hope that that is what I implied in my last reply. We see British Coal in future needing to produce secure supplies which are competitive on the world market.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in respect of competitiveness British Coal's achievement over the past few years in producing an enormous increase in productivity has been something to be admired? Secondly, does she also accept that the import of coal is an uncertain thing, as the price of imported coal depends upon the level of freight rates at any one time, the level of sterling in relation to other currencies and the performance in the countries concerned; and that we should be well advised as a country to continue to depend as much as possible upon our indigenous and certain reserves?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, very good progress is being made on improving productivity, which has gone up by 50 per cent. since the strike. But productivity in our main competitor countries, particularly Australia and the United States, is still over three times as high and is continuing to improve at a rapid rate. However, as I said in my original Answer, the conditions of purchase for consumers is a matter for their commercial judgment.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that 12 million tonnes of coal annually are imported into this country from 12 different countries? No doubt some of that coal is subsidised. That has resulted in the loss of 6,000 British mineworkers' jobs. Why is it that the Government persist in a policy of importing unemployment, creating high unemployment and the misery that goes with it in the coalfield communities, in addition to ruining our own coal industry?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I cannot agree with the implication of the last supplementary question. We believe that the freedom to import coal, if consumers choose to do so, is essential and should be encouraged. Nevertheless, the restructuring of the British industry is making it viable and competitive. That is why the Government are continuing to encourage it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, if the Government cannot agree with my noble friend Lord Mason, can they give a response to Sir Robert Haslam, who in a recent statement to the Coal Industry Society said that the consequence of post-privatisation generators relying on imported coal was that there would be a dramatic effect upon the United Kingdom's balance of payments and there would be yet another round of closures of UK collieries?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am not aware that the results of privatisation will be to increase the imports of coal.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what effect the importation of foreign coal has had on our awful balance of payments situation which exists at present?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, without notice I cannot give a detailed reply on the effect on the balance of payments. All I can say is that there is a need to import a certain amount of coal for some purposes in any event—coking coal, for example, for use in the steel industry. Other imports that have been made are necessary to ensure a diversity of supply.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Baroness said in response to my question that privatisation might not have any effect on this. Is she not aware that the Electricity Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to control all fuel stocks? But the Government have stated that they have no intention of restricting cheap fuel imports and that the current joint understanding between British Coal and the electricity supply industry will be abandoned. Is that not tantamount to saying, as the noble Baroness herself has said, that the Government will encourage coal imports?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, what I have said is that the CEGB and the SSEB are already free to import coal if they choose. This freedom of choice will be retained by private generators after the privatisation of the electricity industry.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House what is the Government's policy towards the import of coal from South Africa in view of the fact that many members of the EC are at present discussing a policy of banning the import of coal from South Africa as part of their sanctions policy?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government have no plans to ban imports of coal from South

1009
Africa at present. That is in line with the decision reached by the European Community Foreign Ministers on 15th September 1986.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, in supporting the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, about the price of British coal, I wish to ask whether the Minister is aware that the cheapest deep mined coal comes from the North of England. In the last five years 3·5 million tonnes of coal have been imported, an increase of 2 million tonnes. If that continues, it will mean the closure of at least four pits in the northern region, with the devastation of mining communities which this Government know all about. Does that not mean anything to the Government?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am well aware of the interest of the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, in coal mining in the North-East of England. All I can say is that the closure of pits results from the restructuring of the industry to make it more competitive. It has nothing to do with the imports of coal.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the implications of all the noble Baroness's replies are that there is no future for the British coal industry. Is she aware that 20 years ago, when I was Secretary of State for Wales, there were 60,000 coalminers in Wales? Today the figure has been reduced from 7,000 to 5,000. Will the noble Baroness be good enough to say that she will talk to her right honourable friend and convey the exchanges in this House to him and ask whether he will take positive steps to preserve the British coal industry rather than close it down?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, of course I shall draw my right honourable friend's attention to the exchange of remarks today. But I must emphasise that the Government have given, are giving and will continue to give steady support to British Coal's drive to restructure the industry.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend the Minister whether the import of coal is a question of price or want of capacity, or both.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it affects price and competitiveness.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether we are now importing substantial quantities of gas? Is it not a fact that if that gas were distilled from British-mined coal it would give lots of men employment?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is referring to the process of the gasification of coal. R&D is being conducted into this area and we await the outcome with interest.
Lord Leatherland: Yes, my Lords, but that is not answering my question; is it?
Noble Lords: Answer!

Deer: Tuberculosis Testing
2.57 p.m.
Lord Dulverton Lord Dulverton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are considering the representations from the Veterinary Deer Society, the British Veterinary Association and others about measures for the compulsory testing of farmed deer and those in enclosed deer parks for tuberculosis and for the compulsory slaughter of diseased deer, with compensation, and when they intend to introduce appropriate measures.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, it is intended to lay regulations within the next few weeks that will make tuberculosis in deer a notifiable disease, require deer to be individually marked, and require movement records to be kept. The question of herd testing and a slaughter with compensation scheme is being urgently considered in the light of the response to the recent consultation letter seeking views on the possibility of an industry-funded arrangement.
Lord Dulverton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend very much for that Answer. I am sure that she is aware that there have already been cases—I am not sure how many—of the contraction of tuberculosis by people working on deer farms where TB exists. Perhaps there have not been very many cases. Is my noble friend also aware of the gravest concern of our Red Deer Commission that if the infection ever reaches the hundreds of thousands of wild, red and roe deer in Scotland alone, it would be totally uncontrollable?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, TB can be transmitted from deer to humans. However, the Health and Safety Executive has received only one report of that actually happening so it is not in a position to offer guidance. Handlers should seek advice from their doctor if they suspect that they might have caught the disease. With regard to the spread of TB to wild deer, under existing legislation movement restrictions are imposed on infected or suspected animals or contacts. New legislation will relate specifically to deer.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I am sure we are delighted with the noble Baroness's reply, or the gist of it anyway. Perhaps I may ask her what she meant by "industry-funded". Does that relate to the whole agricultural industry or purely to the deer industry?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I meant what I said. The industry is pressing for a compulsory slaughter scheme but is not willing to finance the cost of paying compensation on slaughtered animals. The Government have no powers to compel the industry to finance compensation and are considering the industry's proposal for compulsory slaughter with the compensation funded by the Exchequer.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, if sheep and cattle were grazed in the same park as deer, would they be at risk from tuberculosis?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as things stand, the infection in five out of eight known infected herds is associated with imported stock. There is no evidence, for instance, that deer have caught TB from badgers.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I have drawn attention to the question I am about to ask before. Does my noble friend realise that if this infection ever got into wild deer it would not only destroy our largest mammal, the red deer, which has been here since the Ice Age, but it would also destroy an industry—which of course would take some time—that is extremely important to the Highlands of Scotland?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I thought I had answered an earlier supplementary question on wild deer. However, I should say that to date TB has been found in only eight wild deer. Culled wild deer from selected areas in South-West England are being surveyed so as to estimate the extent of its presence, and wildlife samples in general are tested if TB is suspected. As I understand it, no TB has been found in wild deer in Scotland.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, would not the proposed regulations involve an increase in veterinary surgeons? Therefore, would it not be unwise to close either the Edinburgh or the Glasgow veterinary schools or to amalgamate them?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I admire the noble Lady. The education of veterinary surgeons is the responsibility of the Department of Education and Science. However, my department naturally has an interest in the future of vets.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, will my noble friend enlarge on her original Answer? I was not quite sure whether she was referring to farmed deer or all deer which live in an enclosure. I am sure that she knows that there is a world of difference between the two kinds. Is she aware that farmed deer are used to being handled, are easily caught and therefore can be marked, but there are many park deer that have been living wild in parks, often for centuries, which are totally wild animals and it would be almost impossible to catch them and mark them as she suggested in the original Answer?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do not have an official answer to that point. However, park deer are culled in the same way as all herds of deer, as I understand it. In the culling process the meat could be examined to see whether it showed any signs of the disease. I must say that I am speaking entirely for myself here.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Minister said she was relying on restrictions on movement to control disease. How are these restrictions supposed to apply to wild deer?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as I said, only eight wild deer have been discovered in Scotland to have the disease. There are no restrictions. Let us keep this whole matter in perspective. There are 250 herds of farmed deer in Great Britain. While the Government take this issue very seriously, it is important to keep it in perspective, given that eight herds are known to be infected and that the infection is associated with imported stock.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, would it be in order to tell the Minister that when she says she is speaking only for herself her answers are better than those from her department which she reads out?
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, was the answer to the last serious question correct when the Minister said that eight cases of wild deer with the disease had been discovered in Scotland, although previously she said that no wild deer had been discovered to have tuberculosis?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I believe I said that eight cases of wild deer with tuberculosis had been discovered. I do not think I mentioned Scotland.
Noble Lords: Yes!
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we may all have to wait while I find the right page. I am now reading from what I originally said. To date, TB has been found in only eight wild deer. As noble Lords will read in Hansard, I then continued by saying that, as I understood it, no TB had been found in wild deer in Scotland.
Lord Dulverton: My Lords, perhaps I can help my noble friend by suggesting that the eight cases referred to occurred in the very South-West of England and not in Scotland.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for any help.

Japanese Companies: UK Investment Incentives
3.6 p.m.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne Lord Bruce-Gardyne asked Her Majesty's Government:
What has been the total cost to United Kingdom taxpayers of all forms of grant and subsidy paid to encourage inward investment by Japanese industry in the United Kingdom over the last 10 years.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, around £120 million was paid in investment incentives to Japanese-owned companies in the United Kingdom in the 10 years 1979 to 1988 under the main schemes of regional and national assistance for industrial

1013
development. In the period, projects expected to create or safeguard over 30,000 jobs, with project costs in excess of £1.5 billion, were supported under these schemes.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for those figures. However, I am not sure I heard them entirely correctly. Did I understand him to say that the total cost of subsidies to incoming Japanese firms was£120 billion? If I misheard the figure I apologise. But whatever the figure was, I ask my noble friend, as one whose enthusiasm for open markets and, above all, for an open single market after 1992 is at least as great as his own, and I dare to think even greater, whether those of us who believe in open markets should not nevertheless be worried about the very severe surge of protectionism which we witness on both sides of the Atlantic now. Is it not possible that to wander around flourishing enormous subsidies to incoming Japanese firms at a time of great sensitivities in Europe could become a little bit like wandering round a hay barn in high summer with a lighted pipe?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I am not sure I quite go along with the simile he has just given in your Lordships' House. But the difficulty is that I do not know how to stop the Japanese companies. If Japanese companies look around Europe and compare us, say, with Germany, they see that we have payroll taxes of 11 per cent. while in Germany it is over 100 per cent. They see that we have corporation tax of 35 per cent., while in Germany it is 56 per cent. Therefore, for reasons that seem to me to be quite obvious, they opt to come here. In many cases now Japanese companies come to this country and receive no assistance whatsoever. In other cases they come and receive only selective assistance which is available to other British firms. I cannot see any way in which I should keep them out, nor is there the slightest possible reason why I should even try.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that we on this side of the House support a programme of government incentives to encourage Japanese investment here, provided of course it is complementary to our own indigenous manufacturing industry, or whatever industry is involved, and not destructive of it? Furthermore, does the noble Lord accept that in South Wales particularly Japanese companies have shown a policy of good neighbourship which we very much appreciate?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for his support on this question. It is a habit I should like to encourage in him.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord also recognise that there is nothing wrong in subsidies; and that there is no wrongdoing, let alone a clearly disclosed wrongdoing?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that it is immensely encouraging that Japanese companies still regard and are increasingly regarding this country as much the most attractive location for their overseas investment in Europe? Will he recognise that while some may be tempted to invest elsewhere on the Continent in order to curry favour with other governments in the Community, they would be well advised to invest where they think their economic future is the brightest?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am sure that at the end of the day overseas companies coming to the United Kingdom will invest where it best serves their purposes. That is why I believe they come here. I should like to make the point that in the Government's view there are no foreign companies in the United Kingdom: there are Japanese-owned British companies; and there are American-owned British companies; and there are German and Swiss-owned British companies. That is surely the best view because it is Britons who are employed by them, and the wealth created accrues to the United Kingdom.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the companies come here because they know that the British worker is a very hard and dutiful worker, and they want to take advantage of his labours?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I must report that when I was last in Tokyo I heard a great many remarks about the quality and output of the Nissan factory in the North-East of England, which at the time compared favourably with any other plant owned by Nissan anywhere in the world, including Japan.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, can my noble friend give any indication of how the figures designed to encourage inward investment compare with the encouragement given to investment in this country?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, they are precisely the same. We do not have special rules for overseas companies. Selective assistance in the appropriate areas of the country are available to companies whether or not they come from overseas or not. I should remind your Lordships' House that Toyota may very well decide to come to the United Kingdom without receiving one penny of assistance. Even if the company decides to go to a development area where it would receive regional assistance the new regime in Europe may be such that it will not be able to collect it.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I fully support inward investment in this country from Japan or any other country. Nevertheless, is it true that two years ago 50 per cent. of the total regional aid budget was taken up by one Japanese investment in the North East of England? Can the Minister give me an assurance that the granting of such a large proportion of the budget has no effect on the

1015
investment incentives for indigenous companies which wish to expand?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. I shall have to check that figure and I shall write to him and place a copy of my letter in the Library. I am slightly surprised by the noble Lord's question because I have been used to a world in which it seems to be Scotland which receives the bulk of the regional aid money.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that while many of us on these Benches disagree with a great deal of what the Government do, we applaud their enthusiasm for fighting protection and supporting free trade?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I may have led my noble friend to misunderstand my viewpoint. Is he aware that if he were to try to stop inward investment I should immediately demand his resignation? I do not say that I should get it, but I should demand it. Does my noble friend recognise that I have never, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, seems to suggest, denounced subsidies as evil? But I have suggested that they are silly. Does my noble friend agree that in giving in some cases substantial subsidies to incoming Japanese firms we are being downright silly and encouraging the feeling in other parts of the Community that this country may turn into a Trojan horse for the Japanese? Does he further agree that we may thereby provoke precisely the sort of protectionism in the Community and the United States which my noble friend is as keen as I am to prevent?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I think that there are two distinct parts to my noble friend's question. In relation to the first part concerning state aid, I read with great interest a speech made by Sir Leon Brittan recently and an announcement that it appears that the Commission is to lead an assault on the principle of aid across the Community. It would be a very bad competition in which countries in the Community would vie with each other to entice companies to invest. It would be better to have no aid at all and to let companies, out of sheer economic self interest, invest in the country which provides the best economic climate. That country, I suspect, would be the United Kingdom.
So far as concerns the noble Lord's second point, I do not believe that I should be doing my duty if I were to say to overseas investors, "Please do not come here because you might make other countries jealous". That is something we shall have to learn to live with.

Licensing (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
3.14 p.m.
Lord Brooks of Tremorfa: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Licensing Act 1964. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time—(Lord Brooks of Tremorfa.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House Debate, 12th April
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the motion in the name of the Baroness Blackstone set down for 12th April shall be limited to 5 hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to the debate with the substitution of "5 hours" for "2½ hours" and "25 minutes" for "20 minutes"—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Companies Bill [H.L.]
3.16 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham.
It may be helpful if I explain briefly what lies behind this Motion. It has been agreed through the usual channels that it will be for the convenience of the House to discuss the new clauses tabled by my noble friend and proposed to be inserted between Clauses 96 and 97, under Committee procedure. As noble Lords are aware, this gives more flexibility in debate than is possible in proceedings on Report. For procedural reasons, in order to do this it is, however, necessary to recommit the whole Part of the Bill into which it is proposed to insert the new matter. That will entail taking all the amendments tabled to Part V—that is to say, Clauses 92-104 inclusive—in Committee of the whole House on recommitment.
In practice, if this Motion is agreed to, the Report stage will proceed as usual in order to deal with the amendments to Part IV of the Bill. The House will then resolve itself into a Committee on recommitment to deal with Part V. When all the amendments to Part V have been dealt with, the House will be resumed and the Report from the Committee on recommitment will be received forthwith. The Report stage will then continue as normal. The amendments to both Parts IV and V will be marshalled on a single Marshalled List in the order in which they will be taken.

1017
I hope that this procedure will provide an acceptable and convenient way for your Lordships to consider Part V of the Bill at this stage. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be recommitted to a committee of the Whole House in respect of Part V of the Bill; and that Standing Order 44 (no two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with for the purpose of taking the Report Stage on the same day as the Committee (on recommitment)—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

House of Lords Offices: Select Committee Report
3.17 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move that the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 32).
There is one item in this report which I am sure will be of particular interest to your Lordships; namely, the second item concerning the new dining facility for the Refreshment Department.
The intention is to open the new area by the beginning of June this year, and in due course a circular will be sent to all noble Lords informing them of the new arrangements. It is intended to call the new room the Barry Room after Sir Charles Barry, the architect of this building. It may be of interest to your Lordships to know that it is located beneath the Princes Chamber and the north end of the Royal Gallery. Access will be through the door to the Peeresses Gallery and in due course from the courtyard through Chancellor's Gate. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 32).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1. FACILITIES AT THE HOUSE OF LORDS FOR MEPS
The Committee agreed that when United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament sought to gain the limited access to the House of Lords granted to them in 1980, they should do so on production of a recently issued, distinctive Palace of Westminster photo-pass.
2. NEW DINING FACILITY FOR THE REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT
The Committee were informed of the intention to open the new dining area in the Refreshment Department by June 1989 and to issue a circular to Peers in due course informing them of the detailed arrangements for the new area. The Committee agreed that the new dining facility should be named the Barry Room.
3. STAFF OF THE HOUSE
A report from the Staff of the House Sub-Committee was made to the Committee who agreed to:

(a) provision for Nuffield/Leverhulme Travelling Fellowships for Clerks;

(b) the creation of seven additional posts in the new dining facility for the Refreshment Department;

(c) the substitution of an Higher Executive Officer post for the present post of Supervisor of Hansard Typists;

(d) the regrading of the post of Personal Secretary to the Clerk of the Parliaments to Higher Executive Officer;

(e) a revised daily fee for the Staff Inspector; and

1018

(f) the payment of a night duty allowance to Hansard word processor operators.

4. LIBRARY
A report from the Library Sub-Committee for 1988 was laid before the Committee.
5. COMPUTER DEVELOPMENTS
The Committee were informed of computer projects in the House of Lords Public Bill Ofice, the Office of the Official Report (Hansard) and the House of Lords Library.
6. INSURANCE FOR LORDS
The Committee approved an increase in the personal accident cover for Lords whilst on Parliamentary duty.
7. PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
The Committee authorised a revised subsistence allowance for Delegates to the Council of Europe and the Western European Union.
8. CONFERENCE
The Committee agreed to provision being made in the House of Lords' Vote to meet a share of the cost of the Conference to be held in London in 1990 by the Information Technology Working Party of the European Centre for Parliamentary Research and Documentation.
9. DEPARTMENT OF THE GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD
The Committee were informed of the appointment of Air Commodore A. C. Curry, OBE, to the post of Yeoman Usher.
10. INTERNAL AUDIT
The Committee agreed that the post of Internal Auditor be extended until October 1989.
11. REVISED SCALES OF PAY AND ALLOWANCES
The Committee approved increases in the rates of pay of the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees, and confirmed the application of the following Civil Service Memoranda to staff of the House of Lords:—

CM/862 Subsistence and Meal Allowances

CM/863 Revised scales of pay for staff linked to IPCS grades.

12. HANSARD REPORTING STAFF
The Committee authorised payment of revised late night allowances to permanent staff, revised attendance fees to temporary reporters and a scale of charges for the supply of agency word processor operators.
13. SUPERANNUATION
The Committee were informed of new Additional Voluntary Contribution arrangements introduced for civil servants, and sanctioned the application of a similar scheme for the staff of the House of Lords.
The Committee were also notified of the following awards made under the House of Lords Staff Pension Scheme:—

(a) Pension and lump sum to Mrs. M. M. Attree, Executive Officer, who retired on actuarially reduced early retirement terms on 1st January 1989.

(b) Pension and lump sum to Brigadier D. M. Stileman OBE, Yeoman Usher, who retired on 16th January 1989

(c) Pension and lump sum to Mr. J. A. Lamprell-Jarrett, Executive Officer, who retired on 3rd February 1989.

(d) Revised pension and lump sum to Mr. C. E. Houghton, re-employed Senior Clerical Officer who finally retired on 12th February 1989.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Official Secrets Bill
3.19 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 3 [International relations]:
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington Lord Hutchinson of Lullington moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 3, line 21, leave out from ("relations") to end of line 24.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 18 and 20. Amendment No. 16 relates to Clause 3 which deals with international relations. It effectively seeks to leave out Clause 3(1)(b). Amendment No. 18 seeks to leave out Clause 3(3) and Amendment No. 20 seeks to leave out Clause 3(6). The purpose of these amendments is to seek to remove from the clause mere breaches of confidence. Many noble Lords will know far more about the subject of international relations than I do and I am sure will want to examine this clause with the greatest care. Breaches of confidence are here made criminal offences. In these amendments we suggest that such breaches should be dealt with under disciplinary codes within the departments concerned.
It might help the Committee to start by looking at the definition of international relations given in subsection (5) on page 4 of the Bill. Noble Lords will appreciate the breadth of what we are dealing with. The subsection states:
"In this section "international relations" means the relations between States, between international organisations or between one or more States and one or more such organisations and includes any matter relating to a State other than the United Kingdom or to an international organisation which is capable of affecting the relations of the United Kingdom with another State or with an international organisation."
Noble Lords will see that this clause dealing with international relations broadens the scope of the Bill enormously. It refers to any matter relating to a foreign state or any international organisation and which is capable of affecting relations between this country and any foreign state or international organisation.
Under Clause 3(1) and 3(2), a civil servant or, perhaps more importantly, someone who has been a civil servant and may be working for an international organisation, a member of the Foreign Office working in Brussels or anywhere abroad, any member of the Forces, or any Government contractor employed in the provision of goods or services to the Crown, who discloses any confidential document or piece of information commits a criminal offence if the disclosure is likely to jeopardise United Kingdom interests or seriously obstruct the promotion of such interests. Clearly, to disclose even totally innocuous matter may give rise to loss of confidence between this country and another country simply as a result of the breach and the Government may be looked upon as being leaky. We are talking about documents and information that
1020
are confidential in international organisations as well as in foreign countries.
Matters become even worse and even broader if we consider Clause 3(3) which is the subject matter of Amendment No. 18. The mere fact that the document is marked "Confidential" may itself be sufficient to prove the case if proceedings are brought, completely irrespective of the contents of the document. The Committee will appreciate that thousands of documents that pass between governments and international organisations are automatically stamped "Confidential". Some noble Lords will know that much better than I do. I suggest that most documents of that kind are so marked. More and more decisions taken in Brussels affect this country. If this clause remains as it is, I suggest that almost every document will be so stamped. This clause covers all international organisations, all foreign states and matters having no connection with security or the safety of the state.
In Clause 3(6), which is dealt with in Amendment No. 20 and is on page 4 of the Bill, any information is by definition confidential while the circumstances in which it was obtained make it reasonable for the state or organisation to expect it to be so regarded. Let us suppose that corruption, dishonesty or double-dealing is exposed; that grave harm was to come from the disclosure of information marked "Confidential", such as the cover up of a nuclear or oil spillage, poisoned food, pollution or a hundred kinds of consumer affairs; or, at the lower level, that there were plans to get rid of rules regarding rabies, setting the line of the TGV train through Kent, or the advent of heavy lorries in this country. In all those examples, a document marked "Confidential" would fall within the scope of the clause. Disclosure of such matters would obviously cause acute embarrassment to the Government. It would no doubt jeopardise United Kingdom interests, as surely they would be if such matters were disclosed.
What interests are referred to in this clause? Are they the interests of the state or of the Government? For which purpose will documents be marked "Confidential"? Under the recommendations of the Franks Committee, material marked "Confidential" was designated as being merely prejudicial. Clauses 5 and 6 deal with the ordinary person, particularly the journalist. Those matters that appear in Clause 3 relate to protected information—a point to which I have drawn the Committee's attention—but, under Clauses 5 and 6, journalists and other such people will commit offences if they knowingly disclose that kind of information. How on earth will they be able to know whether the state or organisation would reasonably expect the information to be treated as confidential when it is handed to them?
If this clause stands in its present form I suggest that there will be no document in the Foreign Office or any department dealing with other countries that is not marked confidential. The clause is far too widely drawn and as drafted it is dangerous. These amendments simply seek to take information which is merely a breach of confidence out of the Bill, out of crime and out of criminal offences and make it what I suggest to the Committee it ought to be; namely, a matter of discipline. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: I have some sympathy with the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, on the first two amendments to which he referred, although I cannot support him in his reasons for proposing the third amendment, Amendment No. 20. Clause 3(1)(a) is very broadly drawn indeed:
"an offence [is committed] if without lawful authority he makes a damaging disclosure of—(a) any information, document or other article relating to international relations".
One could hardly have the matter more broadly expressed than in those few words. It seems to me that if subsection (1)(a) is taken together with subsection (2)—which the noble Lord does not propose to have left out—and with subsection (6), one does not need subsection (1)(b) because the greater includes the less.
I believe that it would strengthen the Bill if subsection (1)(b) were omitted. It would certainly save a great deal of rather subtle argument in court about the exact meaning and effect of subsection (1)(b). If that subsection were omitted, then subsection (3) would automatically fall because it refers only to subsection (1)(b). So much for the first two amendments. For the reasons that I have given, and apart from any reasons put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, I think that the Government should explain why subsection (1)(b) is necessary.
I should like now to turn to Amendment No. 20, which proposes that subsection (6) should be left out. That is surely an entirely separate point. Indeed, it is quite conceivable that Amendments Nos. 16 and 18 will be accepted while Amendment No. 20 is not agreed to. I believe that there is a great deal to be said for subsection (6). In my opinion it explains rather more clearly the effect of subsection (1)(a) than does subsection (1)(b). Therefore I feel that subsection (6) should remain in the clause.
Lord Belstead: The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, would completely remove from the Bill the category "protecting material received in confidence from another state or international organisation". First of all, although in moving his amendment the noble Lord referred to these matters as mere breaches of confidences, the Government feel very deeply that we need to protect foreign confidences in the way proposed by Clause 3 in order to provide the protection of our criminal law in the interests not of other countries but of this country. I like to think that the harm test makes that clear.
All this information—I am referring to foreign confidences because that is what the first amendment would sweep away—is already protected under existing official secrets law. We believe that it should continue to receive protection but, unlike the present law (and this is a liberalisation), in this Bill the protection is only when the unauthorised disclosure of foreign confidences would jeopardise or be likely to jeopardise our interests abroad or otherwise when it would satisfy the related tests of harm set out in Clause 3(2) of the Bill.
1022
Effective international relations depend on the exchange of information in confidence. If other states or international organisations believe that we cannot protect their confidences, they will not provide them and, as a result, our interests abroad and our ability to protect those interests may be endangered.
At this point I must address myself to the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Renton. I understood him to say that it is all right to have in the Bill subsection (1)(a) dealing with international relations but he asked whether subsection (1)(b) was really needed at all. The difficulty about leaving out subsection (1)(b) is quite fundamental. The problem would be that the category of information called "foreign confidences" is materially different from that category which relates to international relations in general. The category of information relating to international relations by itself does not adequately protect our interests abroad because it only covers information relating to relations between states and international organisations. In addition we must be able to protect other confidences when our interests require it. That is the Government's thesis and what subsection (1)(b) makes possible.
I should like to offer another example. It may be that another state provides us with information in confidence about its proposals on some quite domestic economic issue. Though the information does not relate to international relations it may be the subject of very great political controversy in the state which has provided it. Our failure to protect such information would make that state very reluctant to trust us further and might cause it to change its mind and stance in relation to matters affecting our interests abroad. For example, it might induce that state to decline to support us soon afterwards in securing some quite beneficial treaty. It is not the nature of the information itself which puts in danger our interests abroad; it is the breach of confidence which does so. We must provide protection for such matters. That leads on to the need for both subsection (3)(a) as well as subsection (3)(b), which would be the target of the noble Lord's second amendment, Amendment No. 18.
That brings me to the final amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, Amendment No. 20. The noble Lord wished to do the job properly by sweeping away subsection (6). I was most grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for saying that it was most necessary to have subsection (6) in the Bill. I add my voice to his. I believe that we shall be in trouble if the definition of what is confidential is not in the Bill. Subsection (6) explains when information is confidential and makes the important proviso, which I should have thought the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, would have welcomed, that such information is protected by the Bill only while it remains confidential. Information originally provided in confidence but which it is no longer reasonable for the providing state to expect us to hold in confidence would not be protected by the Bill.
Those are the reasons why the three amendments cause the Government considerable alarm. I ask the Committee not to support them.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, replies, or the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, gives us the advantage of his wisdom on the matter, perhaps I may say a few words. I fully accept the motive which the Government have in mind as described by my noble friend. As he rightly said, confidences in international relations must be protected. His object is achieved by the combined effect of subsection (1)(a), subsection (2) and subsection (6), but I would also include subsection (1)(b) and subsection (3). I am afraid that I have rather bounced this on to my noble friend. I have given him no previous warning of it. He may wish to consider this purely as a matter of drafting, because that is all it is, between now and the Report stage.
Lord Hankey: I was a diplomat for 38 years and was engaged in bilateral relations and also in international organisations. I entirely share the Government's view about the disastrous effects when confidential documents are leaked. One does not continue to have the confidence of foreign governments which it is absolutely vital to preserve. I strongly recommend the Committee not to approve any of the amendments.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: In moving his amendment the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, spoke of the interests of the Government and then again of the interests of the state. Breaches of confidence in this context can be of absolute importance in terms of the interests of the state.
During the Second Reading debate on the Bill I gave two examples where I was certain that agreements would have been wrecked if information had been available which had been exchanged in confidence in the early stages. The first example was the agreement with the Americans over the Polaris submarine. The second referred to the test ban treaty with the Soviet Union. In neither case if there had been early leaks of information would we have achieved those agreements. Those agreements were of paramount importance to the interests of the state—to the interests of the Government of course, but also of the state. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hankey. In one case we should have lost the confidence of the American Government, and in the other the confidence of the Russian Government. I fully support the attitude expressed by my noble friend the Leader of the House.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps I may say a few words on the amendment. I was slightly surprised at the rather apocalyptic language used by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, about the consequences that would arise if the amendment were to be carried. I directed my attention to the first three words of subsection (1)(b): "any confidential information". For a relatively short period of my life I had a room in the Foreign Office next to the Foreign Office news department. Every day telegrams marked confidential—sometimes they were marked secret—were discussed quite naturally by officials in the Foreign Office news department and were in many cases thereafter disclosed to relatively small groups of carefully selected journalists. I did not think that there was anything reprehensible about that. It
1024
seemed to me that it was serving the interests of our foreign relations.
I found it very difficult to relate what I saw going on in the Foreign Office to the language used by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. Confidential information which comes from our ambassadors following discussions with Ministers in the European Community and elsewhere is regularly disclosed to groups of journalists. It has been done by both Labour and Conservative Governments. So far as I know, no one has ever seriously suggested that the interests of the state were in some way being gravely damaged as a result of this.
I come back to the first three words of subsection (1)(b). The disclosure of "any confidential information" would constitute an offence. It is far too widely drawn, and, as I have indicated, there is no relationship between what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said and what happens in the Foreign Office every day of the week.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that in this serious matter the Committee will accept the advice given by two Members of the Committee who have the greatest practical experience of the subject matter with which these amendments deal. I refer to my noble friend Lord Home and to the noble Lord, Lord Hankey.
It may well be the case—I say with respect that lawyers are apt to press their arguments a little far and a little hard—that the clause as it stands errs on the side of caution. However, in view of the importance of this matter, in view of the vital importance of ensuring that foreign governments should feel that when they give information to the British Government it will be secure, we should err, if we do err, on the side of safety. In the light of the warnings we have been given as to the risk of undermining foreign confidence in the security which our Government can give to information they receive, I express the strong hope that the Committee will reject all three amendments.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: I say with deep respect that in considering the amendments I hope the Committee will not be confused by the thought that any Member of the Committee wishes to risk the good international relationships between this country and any other country. In the margin next to the clause we see the words "international relations". It is with international relations that we ought to be dealing. We ought strictly to confine our comments and thoughts to those words.
For the purpose of my argument I entirely accept—not that I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson—the view of the noble Lords, Lord Home and Lord Hankey, and say that none of us would want to see confidential matters which are really confidential being leaked to the detriment of this country's good name. None of us would want to see it and all of us would regard it as a serious matter which ought to be covered by the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, said that in this clause we are dealing with international relations.

1025
He asked us to look at subsection (3)(1)(a). One is dealing there with an offence in regard to damaging disclosures of,
"any information, document or other article relating to international relations".
Against the marginal description of "International relations", we find that someone who is or has been a Crown servant or government contractor will have committed an offence if he makes a damaging disclosure of,
"any information, document or other article relating to international relations".
What, the noble Lord asked, does one need more than that except, where one is dealing with international relations, a definition of "international relations" in the context of this Bill? Subsection (5) on page 4 of the Bill gives a definition. Let us see how wide is the definition of "international relations". It means:
"the relations between States, between international organisations or between one or more States and one or more such organisations and includes any matter relating to a State other than the United Kingdom or to an international organisation which is capable of affecting the relations of the United Kingdom with another State or with an international organisation".
All that the noble Lords, Lord Home and Lord Hankey, have said is covered by that language because if there is a leak which relates to international relations as defined here, it would cause harm to our country and disadvantage our relations with another country. It is an offence. Whether or not the language is too wide is not my argument. That I share with the noble Lord, Lord Renton. What does one do by opening a most mischievous door from the point of view of prosecutions, the law courts and defining the statute? My argument is what is subsection (1)(b) for? Subsection (1)(b) goes wide of international relations. With great respect to the Leader of the House, he dealt very fairly with all the arguments but not with this one. The subsection reads:
"any confidential information"—
and confidential is defined in subsection (6), but it is not required if the word "confidential" does not appear elsewhere in the clause other than in subsection (1)(b)—
"document or other article which was obtained from a State other than the United Kingdom or an international organisation".
That has nothing to do with international relations, which the noble Lord, Lord Home, was anxious to protect. All of us ought to be anxious to protect that. It is something quite different, especially if it relates to a Government contractor.
Let us take it for granted that a government department enters into a contract with a United Kingdom contractor. The contractor has a specification which tells him to use a certain article. An international organisation dealing with health, or perhaps a Ministry in another country such as France, writes to him and tells him that the article he is buying from, say, Italy, has been tested and has been found to be dangerous. The contractor goes to the Ministry and tells it what he has been told. A Ministry official tells him not to worry but, as he is under contract to continue to complete the specification.
1026
That contractor, if he goes to any lawyer worth his salt, will be told that under this wording he dare not publish; he dare not allow anybody else to know. The contractor has told the government official in the Ministry, but he dare not say another word because of the wording in Clause 3(1)(b). First, it is confidential information; it is a document or another article which has been obtained from an international organisation. Lo and behold! the contractor is caught and dare not do it. He will be told that anybody can argue in court that this was harmful and therefore he dare not say a word.
This has nothing whatever to do with international relations. We have caught government contractors in this clause as well. In all seriousness, if the Government cannot accept the amendment today on the basis of what has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Renton, Lord Hutchinson, and others and, humbly, by myself, for Heaven's sake do not be obstinate merely because a brief rejects the amendments. These are serious arguments. The least the Government should do is take the amendments away, and read the debate, including the usual worthy contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
Worthy contributions are not always made in favour of submissions that I try to make to the Committee, but they are always worthy from the noble Lord. He made an even worthier contribution today because he agrees with the submission that I have made. The least the Minister can do is to take this away because here we are covering issues which we do not mean to cover. We are carrying into the clause government contractors and we are not dealing with international relations, which are ably dealt with in Clause 3(1)(a) and, with the one exception, the other clauses in the Bill. I make these submissions regardless of other submissions that I may make but which would not clarify the issue.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord has said that I and he agree entirely. I must confess, however, that I agree with only about two thirds of his argument. I was grateful for the extent to which we did agree. However, I plead with my noble friend Lord Belstead and with the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. We have had a debate on what is, quite frankly, a rather confusing issue on a difficult piece of drafting. We have had contributions from noble Lords whom we respect immensely. However, there may be a feeling that we do not have this exactly right. I plead with the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, not to press his amendment but to withdraw it. I make a further plea to my noble friend Lord Belstead to take this away, as several of us have suggested, because it is worth further consideration.
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, expressed surprise that I had used what the noble Lord called. apocalyptic language concerning the leaking of foreign confidences. The reason for that and the answer were given by no less a Member of the Committee than my noble friend Lord Home who gave not one but two examples of occasions when foreign confidences had been of the most enormous importance. My noble friend gave two historic examples where there would have been great jeopardy if leaks had occurred.
Lord Tordoff: I am most grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House, but are we to suppose that those documents will be marked "Confidential" and not "Top Secret"? That is the difference.
Lord Belstead: We have not strayed at the moment into classification. Obviously the whole question——
Noble Lords: Oh!
4 p.m
Lord Belstead: We have not. I shall gladly do so as something separate in a moment or two, but perhaps I may continue. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, at one time worked in the Foreign Office. He expressed surprise at the beginning that it seemed that all kinds of information was being given out to the press. I think the noble Lord ought to read the second line of Clause 3 which makes it clear that the clause deals with matters that are revealed "without lawful authority". Presumably when the noble Lord was working in the Foreign Office he was witness to information being given to the press with lawful authority.
I join my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter in saying that I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, and to my noble friend Lord Home for their advice that we should be careful and prudent about these matters. However, this has been an interesting debate. I have learned athing or two in the last quarter of an hour. I shall try to address myself to the point which has been put to me by my noble friend Lord Renton. We shall see whether that will take me a step or two further forward. My noble friend, who is a master of the art of drafting, may not perhaps be giving the interpretation to Clause 3(5) that the Government feel we should give. Subsection (5) defines international relations in a way in which, as I sought to make clear in my opening remarks, does not include the example of an issue domestic to another state but communicated to the United Kingdom in confidence.
I gladly give my noble friend an undertaking to look at the matter again. I shall ensure that in government we look at the drafting. However, if the Government are right, then in addition to subsection (5) one needs another subsection dealing with foreign confidences. That subsection is subsection (1)(b), which deals with foreign confidences. I give my noble friend the assurance for which he has asked and say that I shall look at the drafting of subsection (5) to see whether it includes foreign confidences.
Leaving that issue aside, it is absolutely clear that one requires a provision in the harm test which will deal with foreign confidences. At the risk of being tedious I should like to remind Members of the Committee of the example I sought to give. It was of another state providing us with information in confidence about its proposals on an entirely domestic issue not related to international relations but possibly being the subject of great political controversy in the state concerned. Then if we do not protect the information it may make that state highly reluctant to trust us further and may put our whole relations with that state in jeopardy.
1028
In that case it is not the nature of the information which has put in danger our interests abroad but the act of the breach of confidence. It has stripped away the trust between the other state and the United Kingdom. We must provide for such matters and that provision is made in Clause 3(3). Although there is an issue between myself and my noble friend Lord Renton as to whether the drafting of subsection (5) is right, I stand by the belief that we need subsection (3) beyond peradventure.
I should like to flesh out what I said about Clause 3(3). Its purpose is to make clear that when considering a case in the foreign confidences category the courts may take into account the element of breach of confidentiality in deciding whether the damage test has been made out. If we did not have subsection (3) it would be possible for the defence to argue in such a case that only the nature of the contents of the information was relevant and not the actual breach of confidentiality. If successful, that argument would start to make nonsense of the foreign confidences category.
Subsection (3) makes it clear that breach of confidentiality is also relevant. It is relevant but not conclusive. As Members will note, the subsection begins with the word "may" and not with the word "shall". Therefore, I stress the fact that the Government lay great importance on having subsection (3) in the Bill.
Returning to the main amendment, we also place great importance on the fact that we have in the Bill the main subsection which Amendment No. 16 seeks to remove; namely, foreign confidences. I believe that if the main amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, were to be agreed to this afternoon, it would remove a category which would leave a serious loophole in the Bill. It would damage our ability to conduct our relations with other countries and with other international organisations. It would leave unprotected an area of information whose disclosure could have serious consequences for the interests of our country abroad.
As regards the principle of whether the main group of amendments should be agreed to, I ask Members of the Committee not to support them.
Lord Mishcon: I know that the Committee will recognise that this is an important matter and that I am not straining its patience if I address the Minister briefly in regard to his reply. First, I should like to thank him for dealing with my request of the Government to think again about the clause. The request was reiterated by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to whom I am also grateful. It would be ungracious of me not to express my appreciation.
In view of the request, I shall not ask the Minister to do so this afternoon—it is for my noble friend Lord Hutchinson to say what he wishes to do with his amendment—but the noble Lord did not deal with my example of the government contractor who is also caught up in the issue.
In regard to the Minister's main submission that one needs a provision to cover the breach of confidentiality, I offer to him this thought, for what it is worth. Subsection (5) already contains the words:

1029
"includes any matter relating to a State other than the United Kingdom or to an international organisation which is capable of affecting the relations of the United Kingdom with another State or with an international organisation".
In my view it is very simple to add the words:
"which may include the very fact of a breach of confidence".
Those are not the words which must necessarily be included in the Bill. However, if it be desired one can include in the Bill, within the definition of international relations which are affected, the fact of a breach of confidence that may injure the relationships between two countries. One does not need a separate subsection (3).
I cannot speak for the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, but I am more than content that this useful discussion be reviewed by the Minister with a view to seeing whether he can accommodate the views that have been expressed. I hope that we may have his answer before the Report stage so that we shall know how to deal with the matter—that is, if the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, decides not to proceed with the amendments on that basis.
Lord Belstead: If the Committee will forgive me, I should like to make my position clear. I hope that on behalf of the Government I have made the position crystal clear. With all the experience that he has, I should like to believe that this is the view of my noble friend Lord Home and also of the noble Lord, Lord Hankey. I have tried to make clear to the Committee the fact that the Government deeply believe that, in addition to general information relating to international relations, we also need to protect material which, as I sought to explain, we call foreign confidences. I shall not cover that ground again. If that is the case, it must be covered somewhere in Clause 3. We have covered the matter in Clause 3(1)(b), which the first of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, seeks to knock out of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, believes that it is a matter of drafting and that one can refer to foreign confidences under subsection (5). I believe that that is also the thesis of my noble friend Lord Renton. I undertake to look at the drafting and will write to my noble friend Lord Renton and send a copy to other Members of the Committee. That is a matter of drafting.
However, the Government deeply believe that foreign confidences should be covered in the clause. If that is done we need subsection (3) for reasons which I shall not go over again. For the reasons which I tried to deploy, we need subsection (3), but Amendment No. 18 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, would knock it straight out of the Bill.
Finally, subsection (6) refers to confidentiality. When something is no longer confidential one can take away that categorisation, and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, will welcome that. There I have my noble friend Lord Renton very much with me. Therefore, on those grounds I do not agree with Amendment No. 20 either.
I come back to my undertaking. My undertaking is to look genuinely and honestly to see whether we have the drafting right no more and no less.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: There seems to be quite a degree of sweetness and light, but I am not quite sure what degree of light there was from the Leader of the House in his last words. He told the Committee that he has learnt a thing or two in the past half-hour and I consider that I have at least been instrumental in something which I never thought I should achieve in that short period. When the noble Lord, Lord Renton, makes an appeal to me, I always find it very difficult to resist.
Perhaps I may urge the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, to include a little more in the undertaking which he has given because I do not wish to push this amendment to a Division unless it is absolutely necessary. The noble Lord said that it is the breach of confidence which matters. He says that foreign confidences must be respected and must remain in this clause. The reason for the amendments is that we thought that in getting rid of Section 2 one had got rid of the mischief of ministerial classifications. We have got away from the position where one only had to stamp a document with a certain classification and it then became that for ever. The Government have said that they have got rid of that and everybody appreciates that.
However, the mischief in this clause is that it is drawn so broadly that any document marked "confidential", irrespective of its contents, will fall within the terms of the clause and potentially it will become a criminal offence if it is disclosed. We have tried to tighten this clause. Of course we do not wish to let out matters like the Polaris submarine and so on which would surely never have been classified "confidential". We are trying to deal with matters right at the bottom of the classification and to have a clause here which the whole Committee will agree to in accordance with everything which has been said about our relations with foreign states and so on but which would not potentially make criminal matters of triviality which, after all, can be dealt with by discipline.
The noble Lord says that we must be able to protect our confidences. Discipline within the departments and the service is quite a substantial discipline to deal with leaks on that sort of level. Perhaps the noble Lord can give an assurance that he will take this away and see whether he can not only look at the drafting but also try to tighten the clause so that we are not left with it quite as broad as it is at the moment and to give some possibility of hope that when we reach Report stage the Government may come some way towards assisting us as regards the matter of which we are complaining.
Perhaps the noble Lord will also bear in mind the effect of this clause on Clause 5 because the extent of it goes right out into the whole question of the journalist or ordinary person, but particularly the journalist or ordinary person, but particularly the journalist, who, under Clause 5, comes into possession of a document which is totally innocuous except that it has been stamped "confidential" and has to somehow make up his mind whether he will be committing a criminal offence if he publishes it. It would be of great assistance to us if the noble Lord would give those matters consideration.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Belstead: I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, rose to his feet again, and perhaps the Committee will allow me to speak once more. I am afraid that what the noble Lord said shows a complete gulf between his words and what the Government have said. The noble Lord put two main points to me. First, he repeated—and it is true that I had not picked up the point before, but I do now—that this will be a charter for everything under the sun to be marked "confidential". We are not talking under foreign confidences about this country giving security markings. The provision relates to information which is confidential because of the terms on which it was obtained from other countries. If the document is not received on those terms then it is not covered by the particular category. Therefore, that point is easily disposed of.
The second point which the noble Lord put to me is, "Oh well anyway if we look at Clause 3(2), which is what is called the harm test, it is so broad that it will catch everybody one can think of and it does not get away from ministerial certificates". With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, that is not the case. When I pick up the Bill and I read that a disclosure is damaging if it jeopardises the interests of the United Kingdom abroad, seriously obstructs the promotion or protection by the United Kingdom of those interests (abroad understood) or endangers the safety of British citizens abroad, I do not believe that anyone by any stretch of the imagination could say that that is so broad that if you leak information of that sort, you should not rightly be brought to book. If that is the gulf between the noble Lord and the Government on these amendments, I believe that we should have a Division.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: With respect, I agree.
4.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 16) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 97; Not-Contents, 171.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Ennals, L.

Airedale, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Amherst, E.

Ezra, L.

Ardwick, L.

Falkender, B.

Blease, L.

Falkland, V.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Foot, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Gallacher, L.

Bottomley, L.

Galpern, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Glenamara, L.

Carter, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Gregson, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Grey, E.

David, B.

Grimond, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Hampton, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Hemingford, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

1032

Hughes, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Phillips, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Jay, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Jeger, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Rea, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Kearton, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Rochester, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Leatherland, L.

Russell, E.

Listowel, E.

Seear, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Serota, B.

Shackleton, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Shepherd, L.

Lockwood, B.

Stallard, L.

Longford, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

McNair, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Mais, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Underhill, L.

Mayhew, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Mishcon, L.

Whaddon, L.

Monson, L.

White, B.

Mulley, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Nicol, B.

Willis, L.

Ogmore, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Oram, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Dundee, E.

Aldington, L.

Dunrossil, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Effingham, E.

Allerton, L.

Elibank, L.

Arran, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Balfour, E.

Erne, E.

Bauer, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Faithfull, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Bellwin, L.

Fortescue, E.

Beloff, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Belstead, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Bessborough, E.

Gainford, L.

Birdwood, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Blake, L.

Gibson, L.

Blatch, B.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Blyth, L.

Goold, L.

Bolton, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Greenway, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Butterworth, L.

Halsbury, E.

Caithness, E.

Hankey, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L

Harvington, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Havers, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hayter, L.

Carnock, L.

Henley, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hertford, M.

Chelmer, L.

Hesketh, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Hives, L.

Cockfield, L.

Holderness, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Hooper, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Cox, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Croft, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Cross, V.

Johnson of Rockport, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Joseph, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Daventry, V.

Kimball, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Kinloss, Ly.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lauderdale, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Dulverton, L.

Long, V.

1033

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Pym, L.

Lurgan, L.

Reay, L.

Lyell, L.

Renton, L.

McFadzean, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Rochdale, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Rodney, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Romney, E.

Manchester, D.

Rugby, L.

Manton, L.

St. Albans, Bp.

Margadalc, L.

Saint Brides, L.

Marley, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Savile, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Scarborough, E.

Seebohm, L.

Merrivale, L.

Shannon, E.

Mersey, V.

Sharpies, B.

Middleton, L.

Shaugnessy, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Shrewsbury, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Morris, L.

Somers, L.

Mottistone, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Munster, E.

Strange, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Nelson, E.

Sudeley, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Suffield, L.

Norrie, L.

Swinton, E.

Northesk, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Onslow, E.

Thurlow, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Trafford, L.

Orkney, E.

Tranmire, L.

Pender, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Trumpington, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Piatt of Writtle, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Wise, L.

WyattofWeeford, L.

Porritt, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 30, leave out ("jeopardises") and insert ("causes serious injury to").
The noble Lord said: After the debate which we have just had the Committee will be very familiar with the contents of Clause 3 and there is therefore no need for me to deal with it again. However, this amendment deals with one word in Clause 3. That word is part of a definition in the Bill of "damaging" when it relates to disclosure.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is not in his place because he described my speech as being so far as he was concerned two-thirds of what he felt was right. If he had been in his seat, and for reasons I shall come to in a moment, I had hoped that I might have received a totality of acceptance. He has spoken in this Chamber so often of the need for clear language, especially for criminal law and when courts have to be directed in regard to criminal matters.
The word "jeopardises", if I may say so, comes within the ambit of being extremely doubtful if one is seeking to obtain certainty and to direct a jury. There is no objection, as the Committee will see, to the use of the word "seriously", which is one of the words I have opted for in my amendment to take the place of "jeopardises"; namely, "causes serious injury to".
There is no objection to the word "seriously". It occurs in the alternative definition. There is acceptance too of the word "seriously" as I was trying to argue unsuccessfully yesterday; namely, that Franks had called for "serious" to be inserted for any offence that dealt with breaches of official secrets.
The Bill suffered an ill fate in Parliament but it was well intentioned. It contained the word "seriously". Almost all the statements of government Ministers that I quoted yesterday talking about any breach contained in this Bill used the word "serious". So that word cannot be an objection. When one considers the words,
"causes serious injury to the interests of the United Kingdom abroad"
one does something that makes the task of anyone trying to direct a jury much simpler than by using the word "jeopardises".
I note with pleasure that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has resumed his place. In courtesy I owe it to him to say that I referred to him in his absence by regretting that absence. I said that I hoped on this occasion to have his total acceptance of my remarks instead of the fraction of two thirds. That is because the use of the word "jeopardises" is extremely difficult to apply when you are looking at the criminal law and at the necessity to direct a jury as to what it is to do. I am trying to assess what kind of evidence would have to be adduced by the prosecution to speak in terms of "jeopardises" instead of "causes serious injury to". Does "jeopardises" mean the possibility in some 10 or 15 years' time that there may be an alteration in good relationships? Does it mean a slight tilt in the balance between complete enmity and medium-sized enmity? What is the nature of the proof that would have to be adduced by the prosecution and which the jury would have to accept? As I have said, there is no objection to the word "serious" in this clause because we have it in the next line. Surely it would be so much more sensible to insert the plain words "causes serious injury to". I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I do not share the uncritical enthusiasm that my noble friend Lord Renton has for the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and his argument. I believe that the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on this occasion is simple. Although he did not say so, the effect of his amendment is to weaken the clause, which has been the effect of several previous amendments moved from that side of the Committee. If one has only to prove that the interests of the United Kingdom have been jeopardised, as I understand it one has to mean that they have been threatened. It does not mean that actual damage must have occurred. If one puts into the Bill the words proposed in the amendment, as I read them it would mean that a mere threat to the interests of the United Kingdom would not be sufficient. In order to constitute the offence damage must be visible and have been caused. That is a substantial weakening of the clause.
The noble Lord said that the word "jeopardises" means that perhaps you could say years hence that that may do some harm. That is an argument that a

1035
court would wish to consider. To take the provision from a threat to the security of the United Kingdom and to change it to actual damage having been shown very conspicuously weakens the effect of the clause. It is a very important clause. Therefore I hope that the Committee will decide to keep it as it is.
Lord Hemingford: We seem to have been conducting a debate on these amendments on the footing that the only way that the Government can get their civil servants to behave is to use the criminal law against them. It seems that it would be perfectly legitimate in this case to do what has been suggested, which is to raise the threshold a little on this subject.
We are dealing with a matter of criminal law and it seems that we are going over the top in suggesting that on all these matters everything has to come within the ambit of that law. It is quite clear from many events that have occurred recently and in what has been said during debates in the Chamber and elsewhere, that there are many other ways in which the Government can secure confidential matters short of using the criminal law. I believe that that is the purpose of trying to get a higher threshold on this subject.
Lord Renton: I can hardly resist taking part in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, was once a constituent of mine, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was my best man and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is claiming me, with some dubiety, as anally. Therefore I have no option but to say a few words. I believe it is perfectly plain that "jeopardises" simply means "endangers"; the two words are synonymous and they are meant to be so in the clause. To replace that simple proposition by introducing the words "causes serious injury to" will lead to all kinds of separate issues having to be tried when the matter comes before a jury. For example, did the leak cause the injury? What is the causation? Secondly, was there injury? Thirdly, was it serious? Fourthly, was it serious in relation to the interests of the United Kingdom abroad?
Those are four separate issues of fact that the jury will have to decide, and there will be great argument about each of them at the hands of extremely learned counsel—no names mentioned. I believe that justice would be more likely to be done and security more likely to be protected simply by using the word "jeopardises". I hope that my noble friend will resist this amendment.
Lord Monson: I support this amendment. While there is rarely if ever a case for revealing a secret that causes serious injury to the interests of this country, however disreputable the secret may be, different considerations may apply if the revelation merely causes embarrassment to the government of the day or even to the country as a whole. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I say that embarrassment does not really constitute a threat. The word "threat" is very emotive: if it is analysed it becomes rather less emotive. If the revelation in question caused Britain's balance of payments
1036
position to deteriorate by one-tenth of 1 per cent., in a sense it would be a threat but it would not be the end of the world. One should keep these matters in perspective, and that is the entire point of the amendment.
Perhaps I may give two examples in support of the argument. Let us suppose that a government contractor became aware of the fact that this country was selling slightly substandard, but not dangerous military equipment, such as vehicles, weapons or electronic equipment, that was either new or used to a friendly country—let us say for the sake of argument to a Commonwealth country—and his conscience prompted him into revealing this information to a journalist. Without doubt he would be caught by the Bill as it stands, because clearly he would have jeopardised the interests of the United Kingdom abroad, however justifiably from the moral point of view.
If, on the other hand, this amendment, No. 17, were agreed to, he would most probably escape conviction and might even escape prosecution, because he would then be in a position to argue that his embarrassing revelations had not on balance caused serious injury to the United Kingdom's interests abroad, but had on the contrary benefited them on balance, because it is clearly far better for this country's reputation that the substandard nature of the weapons should be discovered at an early stage when it is still not too late for the weapons to be replaced by this country with profuse apologies to the recipient country, than that the purchasing country should only become aware of the defective aspect of the weapons when they tried to use them against invaders or insurgents.
The other example is this. Just under two-and-a quarter years ago the Today newspaper, which I think was then still owned by Mr. Eddy Shah, published a most disturbing yet highly public spirited report which has never to my knowledge been satisfactorily explained away. To the best of my memory, the story went something like this. On 10th January 1987, an Army convoy was driving across Salisbury Plain in bad weather. Just outside Salisbury, two of the lorries skidded on a patch of black ice and at least one of the lorries went into a ditch. The lorries were later alleged to have contained nuclear depth charges. I do not know the accuracy of the allegation; but in any case, that hardly justifies what followed.
As the accident occurred on a public highway, a crowd gathered round, as crowds always do on these occasions. No civilian police were present. The officer or the NCO in charge of the convoy then proceeded—illegally, in my submission—to detain members of the crowd and asked for their names, addresses, occupations, and so on. They were only released once that information had been given. Subsequently, two-and-a-half weeks later, the Member of Parliament for the area in question—it goes without saying a Conservative Member of Parliament—learnt with considerable indignation that the names of at least three members of the crowd had been placed on FBI files in Washington. This really is an extraordinary state of affairs; law abiding citizens going about their lawful business,

1037
such as taking their dog for a walk, who might never even have been to the United States, find that their names are transmitted to the intelligence service of a foreign country!
It seems to me that when this happens the situation really is intolerable. It presupposes the existence of some secret agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America, providing for such confidential information about innocent United Kingdom citizens to be supplied to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the United States in certain circumstances. Most people in this country would surely be in agreement with the contention that it would be in the public interest for any such agreement to be made public. It would then be up the Government to persuade the people of this country publicly that such an agreement was in their best long-term interests; that whatever the short-term infringement of freedom, the long-term threat to our security rendered such co-operation between the British military and the FBI worthwhile.
Whether they would succeed is open to question. It is one thing for the police to exchange information with their counterparts in another country about those convicted of serious criminal offences or those suspected of serious criminal offences. It is another thing for the British Army to pass information on to the FBI. Nevertheless, the opportunity would be there. But I submit that it is intolerable and against the public interest in a democracy for an agreement that infringes the rights of United Kingdom citizens to be kept secret. What this leads to, I submit, is that anyone who revealed the existence of such an agreement would be morally entitled to do so, and that though it would in the short-term jeopardise the interests of the United Kingdom abroad, in the long-term it would not cause any serious harm.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: It is perhaps as well to remember that what we are about here is to create a criminal offence, and therefore if that is to be done it must be clear and comprehensible. We are talking about a matter which must be considered by a jury. Also there will be public and press interest in the language of any new criminal offence that we create.
Is "jeopardy" really a clearly comprehensible guide to a jury? It was interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, thought that threats were contemplated in "jeopardy". It does not appear, to my mind at any rate, to contemplate threats at all. I suppose that the nearest thing would be "endangers", and I think one finds the word "endangers" later on in subsection (2)(a) of Clause 3. But what is important to bear in mind is that the word "jeopardises" in subsection (2)(a) has to be considered also in the light of subsection (2)(b). Paragraph (a) provides that,
"For the purposes of subsection (1) … a disclosure is damaging if—
(a) it jeopardises the interests of the United Kingdom".
Then, when we go lower down to subsection (3), we reach the situation where the
"unauthorised disclosure would be likely to have any of the effects there mentioned".
1038
So we would reach the ultimate situation where there would be need of proof that what was disclosed would be likely to jeopardise. I cannot see that a jury would be guided in any helpful or comprehensible way by complicated language and concepts of that kind.
I support entirely the recommendation of the Franks Committee in 1972 that there ought to be a more rigorous definition of the harm test, and the one they recommended was that the disclosure would result in serious injury to the interests of the nation. This has been a theme to which we have returned more than once; but I should have thought that nothing less than that is justified if we are to create a new criminal offence in this field.
So the language lacks lucidity. It therefore lacks what ought to be—as has been said more than once in our debates in the Committee stage—a feature of the creation of a new part of criminal law. Therefore I hope very much that on this matter the Government will feel it right, prudent—and indeed just—to substitute the words proposed in the amendment to this subsection; namely, that the disclosure causes serious injury to the interests of the nation.
Earl Ferrers: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, said that what we are doing is creating a criminal offence, and of course he is quite right. The noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, said that what we are dealing with here are civil servants and the criminal law; and I think the inference was that we were treating them too harshly. The whole Bill is about where the criminal law bites and where it does not bite. To use the argument that we are dealing with civil servants and therefore we should treat them leniently does not carry much weight, because if they find themselves in a position of being accused of something, they have the right of defence. There are plenty of places within the Bill giving them that right.
The criminal offence is that in Clause 3(1):
"A person who is or has been a Crown servant … is guilty of an offence if … he makes a damaging disclosure".
Then Clause 3(2) goes on to say what a damaging disclosure can be.
We are discussing the way in which we should express, and protect from harm, this country's interests as they affect our relations abroad. International relations are rarely conducted in a climate of direct cause and effect. The harm which unauthorised disclosures may cause to our interests abroad can be indirect and can be delayed. It is nevertheless real and predictable. For example, a disclosure may disrupt our relations with another country; but, except perhaps for some expression of displeasure through diplomatic channels, there may be no immediate reaction from that country. Nevertheless, our interests abroad may be put in danger. Because of a particular unauthorised disclosure, our interests are no longer as secure as they were. We are vulnerable and know we are vulnerable to some direct form of retaliation as soon as the opportunity arises. Or we may know that as a result other States, alarmed by the revelation, may

1039
not come forward to assist us when we need their help.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was entirely right when he said that the amendment seeks to weaken the Bill, because it seeks to put in place of "jeopardises" the words " causes serious injury to". Thus it has to be shown that serious injury has been caused, whereas "jeopardise" relates to exposing to danger or loss or injury. That is a very different matter.
Of course, the prosecution will have to show that these are real interests and real risks. It would not be sufficient simply to show that our relations with another state or with an international organisation had been disrupted. In the White Paper which we presented last June we proposed that the test of harm should be one of prejudicing dealings between the United Kingdom and another state or international organisation. We accepted the criticisms which were voiced on that proposal that it was too distant from real harm to this country's interests and could apply where no harm followed the disruption of relations.
We therefore included in the Bill the test of harm which the Committee is now considering. It is a more exacting test. We believe that it properly reflects the harm against which the country must be protected in the field of international relations. It is sufficiently clear to allow the prosecution and the defence to introduce evidence, and for the jury to make a decision on the basis of that evidence. I remind the Committee that it is the jury who decides these matters in individual cases. If the prosecution cannot satisfy the jury beyond reasonable doubt that the interests of this country have indeed been jeopardised by a disclosure, it will not convict.
I do not believe that the phrase "serious injury" fits the circumstances as well or as reliably as "jeopardy". As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter suggested, our interests abroad may not necessarily be seriously injured by a disclosure—assuming a court would be able to accept and interpret the metaphor—but they could well be put in danger. The criminal law ought properly to be put in place to protect us against such matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—and indeed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones—called upon Franks, and they said that he had used the word "serious". I suggest that we should not wish to press too far comparisons with the recommendations of the Franks Report. Of course, Franks made a valuable report and much of it is still valid today. But on the central issue of a harm test I do not think that many of the Committee would want to go back to Franks. After all, he advised that we should have ministerial certificates, and not many Members of the Committee would want that. The Government produced a Bill 10 years ago which was based on Franks. It was so unpopular with Parliament that the Government were obliged to withdraw it.
The Franks Report recommended that the disclosure of some categories of information should be subject to a test of "serious injury to the interests of the nation"; that was a test which the Minister would have had to apply before issuing a ministerial
1040
certificate. It was a general test about the interests of the nation—and those interests were not further defined. It was a wholly different approach. I have explained why we have the specific harm tests in the Bill. It is a consequence of the decision not to have ministerial certificates, but to leave the determination of harm to the jury. The general harm test proposed by Franks was put forward in the context of a very different structure. The Franks test was to be determined by a Minister. The Franks Report equally made it clear that the Franks Committee did not consider that the test which it had proposed was one which a jury could be asked to apply.
The proposition in this amendment is that it is all right to put our interests abroad in jeopardy by the unauthorised disclosure of information relating to international relations. I hope the Committee will not accept the proposition that unless the harm can be proved to have caused or be likely to cause serious injury to our interests, the criminal law cannot be invoked. Choosing words is always difficult, but I believe that we have the right words in the Bill.
Lord Renton: I respectfully agree with all that my noble friend has said. In the course of his remarks he used the word "endangers". In the context he clearly meant it as being synonymous with "jeopardises". I think all jurymen and jurywomen would know what "endangers" means; but there may be some who do not quite understand what "jeopardises" means. Therefore, it may be for consideration at Report stage whether the word "jeopardises" might be replaced by "endangers". Perhaps my noble friend would care to think about that.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I should like to support that suggestion. As someone who has had quite a lot to do with juries, I think the jury are going to be told by the judge that first of all they have to decide whether it is damaging. When they have decided that, they have to decide whether it jeopardises. Two lines later there is the word "endangers". The jury have all those different words to consider. We have already heard other suggestions in this debate, such as "harm" and "threaten". I can imagine a judge going through all those words trying to explain to the jury what they mean. Although I support what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, of course I support more what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said.
Lord Mishcon: And of course I support completely what the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said, which means that all is sweetness and tranquility. Perhaps the Minister will add to that tranquility by saying, at least as a compromise, that the word "endangers" will be looked at. It would be even better if he were able generously to accept that that word should be substituted. It would indeed be an historic occasion if in regard to this Bill, as distinct from many that we have had in recent times, there were some concession somewhere by the Government to the cause of common sense and justice.
Earl Ferrers: The jury would obviously have clear guidance on what "jeopardises" means. I think

1041
"jeopardises" is the right word; but it would be churlish of me to say that I would not even consider what your Lordships have said. It sounds to me like an elegant variation of words. But I shall certainly consider the points which have been made without any commitment that I shall say at the end that "endangers" is better than "jeopardises". These matters often require not only an intellectual examination of how the courts work but also a reference to the dictionary.
Lord Mishcon: It is with regard to those semi-gracious words that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 18 to 20 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
5 p.m.
Clause 4 [Crime and special investigation powers]:
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington Lord Hutchinson of Lullington moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 4, line 27, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: I do not wish to jeopardise the patience of the Committee so I shall briefly move Amendment No. 22 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 24, 25 and 26. The meat of what is proposed is contained in Amendment No. 26; the other amendments simply make room for that amendment.
As drafted, Clause 4 deals with the disclosure by a Crown servant or government contractor of information affecting crime. Subsections (3), (4) and (5) deal with disclosures of information obtained by what one can call "phone taps", or as a result of the issue of a warrant under the Home Secretary's authority. Indeed, that issue was dealt with in the Security Service Bill some time ago.
The amendments refer to Clause 4(3). To disclose such information— that is, the phone taps and the warrants— is an absolute offence. Further, the earlier disclosure, in subsection (2), is also an absolute offence if that disclosure results in the commission of an offence, facilitates the escape of a prisoner or impedes the prevention or detection of crime, or if it is likely to do so. One must always remember that aspect.
The amendments seek to make the offences subject to a "damage" requirement— that is, the absolute offences— and provide a defence, the same one as is to be found in Clause 1. Those provisions are to be found in Amendment No. 26. The amendment will be familiar in form. It substitutes for subsection (3)of Clause 4 the words set out on the Marshalled List, as follows:
"A person who is or has been a Crown servant or government contractor is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he makes a damaging disclosure of any information, document or other article to which this section applies and which is or has been in his possession by virtue of his position as such".
It then refers to subsection (2) paragraphs (a) and (b), which are precisely the same as those contained
1042
in the Bill at present under subsection (3). It goes on to state:
"For the purposes of this section a disclosure is damaging".
Then it sets out what we had before; namely, the "damage" contained in Clause 1(4) which we have already discussed. In our new subsection (4), the defence is provided as it is in Clause 1(5). Therefore the amendment simply introduces a damage defence into the absolute offences in this clause.
I should just like to make this comment. Some disclosures of telephone tapping information would obviously be damaging; but other disclosures could be completely innocuous. Let us suppose that I am informed by a civil servant that my telephone was tapped some considerable time ago but that the result of that action had been entirely negative. If I disclose the fact years afterwards that that did actually happen on an occasion, then I would be committing a criminal offence. Wily should the interception merit absolute offence status? We know from what we have already been discussing that the disclosure of, say, NATO secrets, or nuclear submarine technology secrets, requires (under Clause 2) "damage" to form a criminal offence. Further, sensitive negotiations involving possibly even armed hostilities or negotiations on the defence of the currency (as under Clause 3) require "damage" to make them a disclosure which constitutes a criminal offence. Why should it be an absolute offence to disclose anything to do with that one form of surveillance, when other forms of surveillance require proof of damage?
Many forms of surveillance take place; for example, filming someone secretly, listening to their conversation on a radio in a motor car or following them in their movements. Why then should telephone tapping be given the status of an absolute offence? I commend the amendment to the Committee because I think it is a sensible one. It simply gives the damage defence to such disclosures, such as applies to other equally important disclosures which must have caused damage in order to make them a criminal offence. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: If I may say so, I think that we should bear in mind that this is an area where Parliament has already established a clear statutory framework in the Interception of Communications Act 1985. Further, this Chamber is at present in the process of establishing some further aspects of that statutory framework by means of the Security Service Bill. The reason I started my reply by stressing that point is that if the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson will forgive me for saying so, he is to some extent treading over ground which has been very well trodden, and recently trodden, in the Interception of Communications Act. I say that because the framework which we already have in place recognises the vital nature of the powers about which we are talking and because their effectiveness depends upon absolute secrecy about how and when they are used, and about what information they produce.
The framework established by the two statutes to which I have referred also contains some important safeguards. For instance, there must be a warrant for such activities, authorised directly and personally

1043
by the Secretary of State. There is also the provision that the Secretary of State's decisions are kept under review by an independent commissioner. The powers may be used only to secure information for purposes which Parliament has already approved.
In addition, the statutory framework provides a tribunal to consider complaints in relation to warrants. Parliament has accepted in relation to interception, and, if the Security Service Bill is approved will have accepted in relation to the powers under that Bill, that such actions are essential to the effective protection of the security and well-being of the country as a whole.
Clause 4(3), which the amendment moved by the noble Lord would change radically, is consistent with the statutory framework that I have described. It recognises that any unauthorised disclosure about the exercise of those instruments weakens their effectiveness. In such circumstances, it would not be right or sensible to introduce a test of harm, which is the effect of the amendment. All unauthorised disclosures are harmful. If the operational techniques are disclosed, or the information obtained can be disclosed, the value of the instruments would be rapidly diminished; and the effect, in this case, is cumulative. Once something is known about those instruments, it is not safe to assume that that information cannot be identified and deployed to reduce the chances of detection in the future and to threaten those whose lives can depend upon the secrecy of these measures about which we are talking in Clause 4.
The principle in Clause 4 is therefore a sound and necessary one. We should not introduce a harm test to an area where we believe that any disclosure is likely to be harmful. That is why I resist the proposition that a harm test should be put into the Bill. A harm test would require one to accept that some unauthorised disclosures connected with the information in Clause 4 are not harmful, and the Government do not agree with that proposition.
We believe therefore that the result of this amendment would be to encourage disclosures of matters which must be kept secret and would make it very difficult ever to mount a prosecution in this sensitive area and to prove that harm had been caused by the disclosure. I do not believe that is what the noble Lord would want, but I fear that might be the result. I ask the Committee to recognise that in this narrow and statutorily controlled area any unauthorised disclosure of information about or obtained by a warrant is detrimental and that the criminal law should be invoked to protect the nation from such disclosures and so to preserve the value and the confidentiality of those vital provisions. It is for those reasons that I resist the amendment.
Before I finish, perhaps I may return to the point which I mentioned earlier. There may be a residual feeling that, although the collection of information under Clause 4 is enormously important and should be secret, are there not safeguards? I referred to them only in passing. It is difficult to think of an area where there are more safeguards. There is the need for personal warrant to be authorised by the
1044
Secretary of State personally. Each warrant is to be open to scrutiny by a judicial commissioner. If a member of the services is concerned about any matter in relation to a warrant, he can raise it through his line management, or, if he so wishes, with the newly appointed independent staff counsellor, who, if necessary, can report to the Secretary to the Cabinet or the Prime Minister.
The noble Lord mentioned the possibility of someone mentioning, wrongly, that his telephone had been tapped. If that were to happen, that person could seek an investigation by applying to the relevant tribunal, and any warrant in respect of that complainant would be reviewed by the application of the principle of judicial review. In the area covered by Clause 4 there are the fullest and most effective safeguards. They reinforce the Government's view that it is not necessary or desirable to encourage disclosure outside those careful and necessary structures, which I am afraid would be the effect of the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I share one view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington; that is, why necessarily telephone tapping when nowadays there are so many other devices which could be used for eavesdropping, commercially or in any other way, which are much less obvious? Over the past 20 or 25 years, the general public have always been worried about telephone tapping. They regard it as an invasion of their privacy and something which should be carried out only sparingly and for the good reasons which have been accepted by Parliament.
I hope that our telephone system will improve, but given the number of crossed lines and all the other things that go wrong with one's telephone when one is trying to make contact, I have always thought it strange that individuals should regard their telephone lines as privately secure. That has been the history of this matter. I was much involved in the 1985 changes, which resulted in the Act to which my noble friend has referred, which brought in a system to ensure that warrants issued by Secretaries of State were properly looked into. I was a Secretary of State—I believe the only one in the Committee—for four years responsible for issuing warrants. I was determined to do that exceedingly sparingly and only when it was clear that it was necessary.
I say that only because it illustrates how telephone tapping has been regarded as a serious invasion of privacy. There is now to be an arrangement in respect of the security services application for telephone tapping with which the Home Secretary has to deal. Those affecting crime are dealt with by the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, raised the matter in his usual way and pointed out that there are apparently illogicalities, the amendment should not be accepted. The important point is that if information is given away—even if the information is utterly worthless and not secret or sensitive—to someone who might be involved in crime or anything else, that may be an indication

1045
that there is a special system of interception because that is the only way in which that information could have been discovered. That surely must be the overriding factor when one is dealing with the subject of interceptions — the fact that some bit of information could have been discovered only by some means which one does not want a criminal or band of criminals to find out about.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Surely the noble Lord will agree that there are hundreds of other ways, as he said, in which the information could be obtained. That is one of the problems.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I referred to that point. I said that the general public have regarded telephone tapping as a matter which should be covered by legislation, and it is. I, like the noble Lord, have always been surprised—no doubt in future more legislation will be introduced—that some of the other ways that can be used by individuals or commercial firms for eavesdropping have not been brought within the ambit of legislation. However, that is another question. There are situations where something might have been said only over a certain telephone, and if that piece of information got out if would give away to the criminal, or whoever it was, that the telephone was being tapped.
Lord Mishcon: Before too many people take the credit for the fact that the Interception of Communications Act contains those provisions, perhaps I may remind my colleagues in this place that the incorporation of those sections in the statute was bitterly opposed by the Government. I had the privilege of moving the amendment that those clauses be in the Bill, and happily this place accepted the amendment.
Lord Belstead: Yes. But with great respect to the noble Lord, they are on the face of the statute. The effect of this amendment is to begin unravelling the law as we have it.
Lord Mishcon: I was only explaining what has happened on previous occasions with amendments which had been moved by the Opposition — a tradition which has unfortunately not been followed in recent weeks and months.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: The noble Lord, the Leader of the House has replied on the basis that there are many ways in which complaints can be dealt with. This does not involve complaints, with the greatest of respect. The amendments were an attempt to get rid of the mischief of the absolute offence. I only wish that the Government could understand the appalling problems in the criminal courts which arise from absolute offences. Absolute offences are anathema to those who are in the criminal courts. They are anathema to juries, they will never be watertight and they will always give rise to leaks. They will always give rise to verdicts which, on the face of them, are perverse. This was yet one more attempt to try to get rid of making criminal offences of disclosures which may be totally
1046
trivial, totally innocuous, totally stale and yet they will remain criminal offences.
However, having regard to the time and the number of matters of this kind with which we have already dealt, obviously there will be no point in pursuing the amendment into the Division Lobbies. In those circumstances, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 23 to 25 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Information resulting from unauthorised disclosures or entrusted in confidence]:
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Information entrusted in confidence to other States or international organisations]:
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Authorised disclosures]:
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 7, line 7, at end insert ("as prescribed by regulations which shall be made by the Minister for the Civil Service.
(1A) No regulation shall be made under subsection (1) above unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment, somewhat relevant in my view in the light of the discussion we had earlier this afternoon about international affairs. In that discussion my noble friend Lord Harris raised the question of the degree of discretion exercised by civil servants in disclosing confidential information to journalists and others. The amendment deals wi1h the authority under which they do so.
Clause 7 is concerned with the occasions on which a civil servant, a Crown servant—he can either be a Crown servant or a government contractor—or a notified person may make a lawful disclosure on matters falling within the scope of the Bill. The answer to that is that a civil servant has lawful authority to make a disclosure if—and only if—it is made in accordance with his official duty or, as I understand it, if it is authorised.
I should like to investigate a little more carefully what constitutes authorisation and how it is obtained. During the Second Reading of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, I think it was, said that before the last war a distinguished civil servant, Mr. Wigram, passed substantial information which might be regarded as highly confidential to Mr. Churchill when he was out of office. That information proved to be important to Mr. Churchill, though hardly helpful to the government in power at the time. The question was: who authorised Wigram to pass this information on to the formidable opponent of the then government? It was suggested by some persons that he authorised himself. The idea of authorising oneself to

1047
ordinary human being apparently is slightly odd; but I am told that it is extremely common in the Civil Service. I am reliably informed that a man of Wigram's seniority and standing would be able to authorise himself. I take it that under the Bill the same process would take place.
However, in addition to self-authorisation, there is the guidance which is given to civil servants as to what they may disclose in Civil Service codes. That probably allows authorisation, as I have said. I wish to know at what point people can start authorising themselves, at what level of seniority. When the late Donald Maclean was head of the American department, was he sufficiently senior to authorise himself to pass information of a certain kind onto the USSR or was he not? This seems to me to be a matter of some public interest.
The clause which we seek to amend covers not only Crown servants who presumably know what their official duty is because they have been taught that in the course of their careers but who have access to civil service codes. It also covers Government contractors and persons who have been notified by the Minister, which we have discussed earlier. It seems to me that if those last two categories of persons are to be liable to criminal prosecution, they should know beyond peradventure where they stand in these matters and what is the meaning in their position of official duty and the extent to which they have discretion in respect of disclosure.
It is therefore suggested in the amendment that the regulations set forth should be made by the Minister for the Civil Service. Furthermore, those regulations should be made public and laid before both Houses of Parliament. It is in order to discover the extent, nature and authority of the authorisation to disclose that I am moving the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Croham: I shall be very interested in the Minister's reply to this point. I wish to draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, to the fact that the definition of "Crown servant" in the Bill includes a Minister of the Crown. It is a fact that for many years there has been no clarity about who is entitled to authorise disclosures. But one rule has always applied to my knowledge. That is that Ministers are self-authorising. Senior civil servants only act if they believe that their Minister would authorise their disclosure.
It may or may not be appropriate for the Minister for the Civil Service to issue regulations which apply to Ministers. I suspect that even if he did, the Minister would always regard it as consistent with his duty to disclose. I think also that when one tries to draft those regulations one will find that the answer is almost as vague as it is now. But I rest on my point. Servants of the Crown include Ministers. Ministers will normally be self-authorising.
5.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: The Franks Report recommended that it should be an offence for a Crown servant to make an unauthorised disclosure only if he made it:
"contrary to his official duty".
1048
The report said:
"This is a clear form of words which should be understood both within and outside the Civil Service".
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will be delighted to know that on this occasion I believe that Franks was right. That is why the reference to official duty in Clause 7(1) follows his recommendation.
The amendment would require the Minister for the Civil Service to make regulations setting out all the circumstances in which any Crown servant could make a disclosure of official information within his official duty. The amendment would also require the Minister to make a similar provision in respect of notified people. I ask the Committee to contemplate for a moment the magnitude of that task. The term "Crown servant" is defined in Clause 12(1). It includes, as the noble Lord, Lord Croham, suggested, Ministers, civil servants of every rank and hue, diplomats, the Armed Forces, and the police. The regulations would have to identify, define and prescribe the duty of each of these people in relation to their responsibilities in respect of any disclosure of information which they might lawfully make. Generalities and injunctions are not regulations, nor are principles and precepts. Regulations mean detail, and vast detail at that.
It is not just the number and variety of people whom the regulations must cover; it is also the tremendous variety of circumstances in which any of them may disclose official information. It is simply not feasible to lay down in precise and enforceable form exactly what every Crown servant ought to do in accordance with his official duty in respect of any particular disclosure in any particular situation. But that is what the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, would require. Nor do I believe that such regulations are necessary. In practice, Crown servants well know where the boundaries of their powers and responsibilities lie. If they are in any doubt, they have a clear responsibility to refer to their seniors for guidance. In this way Crown servants can reasonably be expected to know what is and what is not in accordance with their official duties.
But in the context of the disclosure offences in the Bill, it is not for the Crown servant to show that his disclosure was in accordance with his official duty. It would be for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was not. If a Crown servant has no reason to know that his disclosure was not in accordance with his official duty, then he has a complete defence under subsection (4) of this clause. That is full and sufficient protection, for anyone who might genuinely have mistaken his responsibilities.
The 1911 Act includes the concept of authorisation by a Crown servant for disclosures. Following Franks, the present Bill uses the concept of official duty. If a disclosure is made in accordance with a Crown servant's duty, it is lawful in the nature of his duty, and therefore his authority for any disclosures he makes depends on the nature of his work, in other words his duty. That applies as much to Ministers as to anyone else. I am sure that we are right to leave this kind of decision to the jury, rather than attempt the impossible by trying to legislate for such decisions in advance. Much depends on the

1049
circumstances in each case and in such matters it is right that it should be for the jury to hear the facts, to weigh the circumstances and to make its own independent judgment.
But there is a point of principle which goes deeper, and which the amendment raises. It has long been recognised and held that Crown servants are answerable to Ministers and that Ministers are answerable to Parliament for the actions of those who are responsible to them. For that reason matters concerning the conditions and responsibilities of Crown servants have always been considered to be matters for the Crown and not for Parliament. This amendment would make a most significant change to that by requiring Parliament to approve regulations relating to the exercise of a Crown servant's official duty. This would have the most profound implications for relations between Parliament and the Executive which will not be lost on the Committee. I am sure that the Committee would wish to think very carefully whether it would be wise to make such a change. I hope the Committee will not wish to do that. I do not believe the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, will wish to do that either.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for his reponse to the probing amendment which I moved. I believe that he rather exaggerated the extent and the difficulty of providing guidance to officials as regards how they should and should not behave. That is common practice and there is a thing called Estacode which I always understood did precisely that. Therefore we are not asking for a totally comprehensive bible which would deal with every possible eventuality and every possible grade of servant of the Crown. However, I do not propose to press this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Safeguarding of information]: [Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 7, line 34, at end insert ("without reasonable cause and").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 32, 34 and 35. The Committee will observe that in each case I am trying to insert by the amendments the words "without reasonable cause". I shall quickly tell the Committee, as I am speaking to these amendments comprehensively, what the offences are to which I wish to add the words "without reasonable cause". At the moment they are absolute offences. In Clause 8(1)(a) the offence concerns a civil servant retaining a document:
"contrary to his official duty".
Clause 8(1)(b) concerns a government contractor failing to return or dispose of a document when officially directed to do so. Clause 8(4)(a) and Clause 8(5) concern an offence committed when a member of the public fails to return or dispose of a document when directed to do so.
If the offence is absolute, it means that when a defendant appears before the court while it may be in mitigation in regard to punishment, at the moment the court is bound to convict on the basis of an absolute offence. The absolute offence occurs because there is a direction to return a document in one of those three categories, and the document is not returned. The Committee may well feel that no prosecution would ever be brought if there was a reasonable cause for the document not to be returned: for example, if the person was ill or the document had been mislaid. Incidentally, there is a separate provision for taking proper care of documents which are of a security nature. One may ask whether a prosecution would be brought in those circumstances. The answer is that there could be a perfectly legitimate difference of opinion between someone in the Civil Service and the Attorney-General as to whether or not the cause was reasonable. The defendant is at least entitled to be able to argue that point before a jury if he is charged with this criminal offence.
All I am seeking to do is to give the defendant the opportunity—it may be a poor opportunity, it may be a satisfactory opportunity—of saying to the court that there was a reasonable cause for his not being able to return the document. I am seeking an opportunity for the defendant to be able to ask the court to accept his reasonable cause and therefore to be entitled to an acquittal. If the court does not find the cause to be reasonable, there will of course be a conviction. I beg to move.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): I hope I can persuade the Committee that these provisions are not necessary in the context of the offences in Clause 8 of the Bill.
As has been explained, the offences we are discussing are concerned with the wrongful possession of documents or articles which it would be an offence under this Bill for the possessor to disclose. We are talking therefore of a person who wrongly possesses material whose disclosure would harm this country's essential interests.
I hope that the noble Lord who moved the amendment is in no doubt that, by definition, such a person has no right to retain such documents or articles. They are not his or hers and so there should be no issue here for the court to determine. Nor can there surely be any question about a person's right, whether it be the Crown or anyone else, to demand the return of his own documents: that principle must apply to official papers as much as to any others. The circumstances in which documents may not be retained and must be returned or destroyed are clearly set out in the relevant clauses and in the light of those principles.
The Committee will see that the circumstances are clearly directed to the person who may be holding the document or article in question. If it is a Crown servant, the proper test is that the Crown servant retained it contrary to his official duty. Reasons for retention can be discussed within that test, but it is difficult to see why a Crown servant should retain documents in any other circumstances.

1051
Secondly, I can see no valid reason why anyone else who receives an official direction for the return or disposal of a document or article should be able to ignore it. As the noble Lord has pointed out, the provisions for government contractors under Clause 8(1) and for others under Clause 8(4) and (5) are in this respect the same. Such a direction must be duly given under the terms of Clause 8(8). Assuming that requirement is met, I do not believe that there should be scope for additional argument.
I understand that the noble Lord is concerned that there may be circumstances in which someone is required to return a document but is physically unable to do so immediately because, for example, he is on holiday or received the direction to return it as he was on the point of going away and has not been able to comply with the direction. Provided that he complies as soon as it is possible for him to do so, no failure can be shown. (I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord.) If it is impossible for him to comply because the document is no longer in his possession or under his control, then there is no offence. That is because, as Clause 8, subsections (1), (4) and (5) make clear, the offence only applies to a person who has such material in his possession or under his control. In such circumstances there is no question of inadvertent offending.
The point at issue here is whether or not a person should have a choice about complying with the direction to give material back to its owner. We do not accept that there can be any reason for a person wrongly in possession of sensitive material to have discretion about whether or not he returns it or disposes of it. These are therefore necessary offences. They do not involve the same degree of seriousness as the other offences in the Bill, and that is marked by their lesser penalty provided under Clause 10(2). But that does not mean we should provide the means for them to be set at nought.
What these amendments would mean in practice is that anyone could destroy a document or an article on receiving a valid direction for its return and could then seek to argue reasonable cause. Of course whatever the court then decided, nothing could bring back the document. The loss of that document would be irretrievable.
It would mean also, that Parliament would have accepted, in our view quite unnecessarily, that there must be circumstances in which such a direction could be flouted and would then leave the courts to establish without further guidance or direction what those circumstances might be.
These are considerations which should not and need not apply to these offences. They are not central to the point at issue and they are not needed to ensure that the provision operates fairly and reasonably. I hope that on the basis of that explanation the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Croham: I should like guidance on one point affecting this clause. As I interpret it, it covers any document created by a Crown servant or former Crown servant which includes information which it
1052
would be an offence to disclose. Therefore any diary in which a Minister or senior official has been misguided enough to include such information would have to be surrendered under the requirements of this clause. That seems to me to be a rather severe absolute offence.
Lord Mishcon: If I may say so, I hope in not too convivial language, I could not agree more with the noble Lord. Having said that, however, time is such that it does not seem worth while to continue an argument about the insertion of the proposed words. I believe that they ought to be there. The defendant ought to be given the opportunity not of saying why he is entitled to retain the document as against the true owner. That would be nonsense because, as the Minister pointed out, title is in the Crown. The only use that could be made of those words is to say, "I know that I have to return the documents but unfortunately there were circumstances which prevented me from doing so". That could be the only defence.
I wonder whether the Minister would agree to consider that argument before we meet again at Report stage. If he agreed at least to do that I should take a certain course.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I can say to the noble Lord, and to the noble Lord who raised the additional point, that there are certainly some circumstances in which it might be misunderstood what documentation we are talking about. We are talking about those documents which are official documents and which the Crown servant has in his possession, as Clause 8(1) indicates, by virtue of his position as a Crown servant. Those documents should be returned to their rightful owner and it is right to invoke the criminal law in respect of such material. The present law contains similar offences.
However, this may be what the noble Lord is driving at. I accept that the principle cannot be pushed beyond physical material which was acquired by a Crown servant or a government contractor in the course of his duties. We recognise that that means, for example—and the noble Lord nods, I think in appreciation of what I am about to say—that, if a Crown servant were to write a private diary for his own use and included within it information he acquired during his daily work, that would be outside the offence which is contained within Clause 8(1). I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord. If the government contractor, or a person subject to the provisions of subsection (4), were to retain the information contained in the official document in another form, such as a diary, under this provision he could not be directed to give up that diary.
We think that it would go beyond the principle of the offences to require a person to give up his own property. Under the terms of the Bill, if a person disclosed the official information that he had recorded in his diary, he might well be liable in respect of another offence.
Having given that explanation of what material is covered and would require to be returned, and having separated it from other information that has

1053
been acquired but recorded in a different form, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mishcon: I must not press the matter further, but I had hoped that, in the light of what I had said, the Minister would offer to consider whether the words giving the opportunity to the defendant of pleading a reasonable excuse could be inserted. I endeavoured to tell him that, obviously, the title to the document could not possibly be an issue. That could not be an argument before the court. Am I to understand that the noble Lord will be kind enough to consider the amendment, or that he cannot consider it?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: By explaining to the noble Lord what occurred to me as properly concerning him—namely, that the ambit of what was sought to be covered here was too wide—I had hoped to indicate to him that that view would be a misapprehension of what we sought to do. We are dealing with just the type of documentation that I have indicated to him. In those circumstances, where it is so narrowed down, I must say to him that I cannot see in what circumstances it would be necessary to have the "reasonable cause" provision. As I indicated to him in my opening remarks on this amendment, if a person were to be ill or on holiday at the time when a direction to comply was made, I do not see that there would have been any offence. Accordingly, there would not be the necessity for that person to have the opportunity to go into court and plead his "reasonable cause". In such circumstances, given the narrowing of the provisions of the clause as I have indicated with regard to the two directions, I respectfully say to the noble Lord that the amendment is not necessary and invite him not to press it any further.
Lord Mishcon: I cannot continue the dialogue, pleasant though it is and courteous though the Minister is. I should like to say how much I appreciate his courtesy as it is the first time since he has been on that Bench that I have had the privilege of exchanging views with him. I shall ask for leave to withdraw the amendment. I merely say that I may return to the issues at a later stage because I do not believe that the point that I was trying to make has been sufficiently answered. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 32 to 35 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Cox): I should point out that, if Amendment No. 36 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 37.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 8, line 18, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: I have yet to find a criminal offence drawn in a statute—the Government presumably hope that the measure will become law—in such vague and unintelligible language. I shall most respectfully tell the Committee what this
1054
clause says and what it is supposed to mean. It states that "A person"—that person can be a journalist, a noble Lord, any citizen of this land or, indeed, someone who is not even a citizen of this land but is resident in the United Kingdom or finds himself there—
"is guilty of an offence if he discloses any information, document or other article which —

(a) Crown servant or government contractor has, or has had, in his possession by virtue of his. position as such; and

can be used for the purpose of obtaining access to any information, document or other article protected against disclosure by the foregoing provisions of this Act,

and the circumstances in which it is disclosed are such that it would be reasonable to expect that it might be used for that purpose without authority."
I am trying to imagine any of our learned judges going through the clause to find out the offence with which the defendant before him has been charged and what the clause in effect means. Without in any way endeavouring to ridicule the language in the Bill, I propose to tell the Committee what must be done about the clause: it must be taken away and redrawn. There is not the slightest doubt about that and if the Committee believes that it is necessary—as it may well do—for me to point out some of the gross inadequacies, ambiguities and impossibilities of the clause, I shall do so, but only by giving a few examples.
The Committee will notice that the offence is to disclose information—not information that may be dangerous, but information that a Crown servant also holds. The Bill does not require that the information should have been obtained from the civil servant; it does not say that, however indirectly. The offence would be committed if a person had quite independently acquired information that was the same or happened to be the same as was held by a civil servant. That means that, if both the civil servant and the individual have received identical information from a third party, the individual would commit an offence by passing it on. However, if only the individual and not the civil servant had received the information, no offence would have been committed.
I turn next to the point that must have occurred to noble Lords: would the offence be committed even if the person had no idea that the same information was held by a civil servant? Under the wording of the clause, the answer must be, yes. I repeat: if the civil servant does not have the document, it is not an offence. If he has, or has had, the document that is being divulged by the individual in question, it is an offence. It is an offence even if the individual concerned had not the slightest idea that the civil servant had the document. If ever there was a Gilbertian situation which would have inspired that great comedian and author to write something by way of a song, it must be this matter.
I promise that this will be the last point that I shall make regarding the absurdity of the clause. The clause states that an offence is committed if it is committed in circumstances in which,
"it would be reasonable to expect",
that it would be used to obtain access to protected information. If someone does not realise that it will

1055
be so used, he presumably has no defence at all if the test is applied that it would be reasonable to expect that he should have had that belief in his mind.
I retire to my seat hoping that the Committee will realise that, if there was ever a clause that must be taken back, it is this one. I ask the Minister to say, especially at this hour, that the clause must and will be taken back. I hope that another clause which is at least intelligent will come before us at Report stage. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has done a service in inviting us to consider this subsection. He is right to point out that when a case comes to court the judge would have to direct the jury. I must confess that I would not envy the judge—and in days gone by I have directed juries in a number of cases in a lower jurisdiction as a recorder and chairman of Quarter Sessions. With this subsection there would be a number of questions of fact which the judge would have to describe to the jury. If he were wise he would give a list of them in order to make quite sure that the jurors applied their minds to each of the questions of fact separately and clearly. As the noble Lord rightly invited us to do, it is right therefore that we should decide whether we are asking too much of the judge and jury.
Having said that, one should bear in mind that the Government are in a little difficulty in this matter. They have to cover unusual circumstances in which documents can go astray. I hope that one of my noble friends on the Front Bench will tell me if I am completely off-beat, but there have been cases reported in the papers in which, for example, secret documents have been left in taxi-cabs. Indeed, a few years ago there was the notorious case in which a whole pile of documents sent by the department for pulping did not get pulped but were found on a rubbish heap.
It seems to me that a person—and it might be any person, as the noble Lord said—who picked up such documents would perhaps be caught by the terms of this subsection, and perhaps the Government may wish him to be caught because the documents could be very important and sensitive. No doubt one could instance many other kinds of circumstances. Therefore an offence is probably needed to cover the type of circumstances that I have mentioned. We must however be quite clear that we are properly formulating this offence, which is quite separate from the offence described in Clause 8(1) and dealt with in the first five subsections of the clause. We must be quite sure that we get it right.
Let us consider what the judge would have to invite the jury to evaluate. First, that the person had disclosed—it does not say to whom, it merely says"disclose"— information or a document. Secondly, it has to be a document which a Crown Servant or a contractor has had or has in his possession. That is the second issue: had the document been in the possession of a Crown servant or a contractor? Thirdly, has that person had it in his possession by virtue of his position as such? That is the third
1056
issue for the jury to decide. Then—and this is not alternative but cumulative—sone comes to the proposition that the information or document:
"can be used for the purpose of obtaining access to any information" —
one should say "other information" —
"document or other article protected against disclosure by the foregoing provisions of this Act".
We know that those provisions are listed but the judge would have to instruct the jury as to what they are; otherwise the jury could not reach a finding of fact.
Lord Mishcon: Before the noble Lord continues his most useful analysis, perhaps I could mention that he passed over one item; namely, that it is not necessary under this section for that poor person to know whether or not the Crown servant or government contractor has had the document. By the mere fact that he has had it, even if he does not know it, he has committed an offence.
Lord Renton: I am very grateful for that interjection. Of course that is so, but I should have thought that it was self-evident, and the judge would perhaps be wise to mention to the jury that it was self-evident.
I have dealt with the factor of whether the document is capable of being used. So there are five factors. None of them is simple and some of them are matters necessarily of inference. It may be that there has to be an offence of this kind but I wish that somehow it could have been framed in broader terms. I must confess that I have not thought of an alternative formula. I have enormous respect for parliamentary counsel, who are very able and careful men—I believe that most of them have double firsts. They are bound by the instructions given to them by the departments, generally from a department's middle range civil servants.
I think it would be of enormous value when they are drafting the terms of an offence, whether or not they have had experience of seeing how cases are tried at the Old Bailey, if they could think through the question of how the judge would present it to the jury and ask themselves whether it would be possible to frame the offence in a broader way and in more simple terms so that its real essence was covered without the need to go into quite so much detail when directing the jury.
I am afraid my comments have been rather lengthy but I promise that they are intended to be constructive. I simply say to my noble friends on the Front Bench, because it is not clear from the explanatory note which only deals with the first part of Clause 8 and not at all with the second part of it, that it would be helpful if the Government would explain what they are trying to achieve in framing this offence. When we have that explanation we shall have a clearer ideas of whether the description of the offence is as it should be or whether it might be more simple.
Lord Hemingford: We have heard two very distinguished lawyers addressing this amendment and I am sure that we all share their sympathy for a judge who is trying to interpret it or a jury who is trying to interpret what the judge has said. Perhaps

1057
I may say a few words on behalf of the hapless citizen who may be charged or feels that he may be charged under this section. I have quite a lot to do with the training of journalists and I would have the utmost difficulty in trying to interpret to journalists where this clause puts them.
It appears to me that they would be guilty of a criminal offence if they published something which was also in the possession of a Crown servant. They may have had no knowledge of that fact but yet be guilty of an offence. That is a simple lay view. Someone may tell me that it is wrong but we should try to make the provision clearer.
I am the first to accept that where we are dealing with matters of criminal sanctions we have to be precise. I do not believe that this is precise. I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is right when he says that it must be rewritten.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Perhaps I may add to the stirring of this pot by saying that the clause might be called a podge. One ought to have a word for these clauses. This is a podge clause. It is a poor old jury clause. This is about the fifth or sixth time one has had a podge clause in the Bill. I should like to know whether, in addition to the six matters that will have to be explained to the jury, this will be an absolute offence. That appears on the face of it to be the case. Secondly, does the disclosure have to be an unauthorised disclosure? Does that have to be proved?
Lord Renton: At the end of the subsection we find the words,
"reasonable to expect that it might be used for that purpose without authority".
It goes as far as that.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, agonised over the spectacle of the learned judges going through this clause trying to find out what it means. Frequently I have sympathy with learned judges and indeed lesser learned mortals who have to go through Acts of Parliament trying to discover what they mean. However, that is because I am not a lawyer. I shall try to illuminate the passage so that the noble Lord will know at the end of what I have to say a little more than he did at the beginning about what the clause is intended to do. I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for his careful analysis of the clause. He was quite right when he said that the Government have to protect themselves against rather difficult and different circumstances.
The amendment would remove from the Bill the offence of disclosing official information which could be used to gain access to protected information in circumstances where it is reasonable to expect that the information might be used for that purpose. Clause 8(6) creates an offence where a person discloses any material which a Crown servant or government contractor has had in his possession and which could be used to obtain access to material protected under the provisions of the Bill. The offence is, however, subject to the important proviso
1058
that the circumstances in which it is disclosed must be such that it would be reasonable to expect that it might be used to obtain such access without authority.
This provision forms an important element in the safeguards which the Bill provides against the unauthorised disclosure of information which the criminal law must protect. Its removal would leave a serious gap which would allow people quite lawfully to provide access to the information protected under the Bill even though they had reason to expect that the interests of this country might be damaged as a consequence.
This provision is necessary to avoid leaving a situation where someone minded to make a disclosure could avoid any liability under the Bill simply by not disclosing the information himself and instead telling someone else how to obtain it. Without this provision he would have committed no offence. The person to whom he gave that information would himself escape any liability under the Bill for any disclosure he might make because he would not have acquired the information by any of the routes set out in Clause 5(1)(a). He could publish it widely, very serious harm could be caused to this country's interests and no one would have committed an offence.
I have an example. Let us suppose that the results of a particularly sensitive international negotiation had to be passed to a senior official in ways which, because of the circumstances, could not be wholly secure. A person who disclosed information about these delicate negotiations might well have committed an offence under the Bill. But what about the person who explained at some gathering discussing the negotiations the method by which the senior official was to obtain that information? Without this provision he would have committed no offence.
My noble friend Lord Renton asked what would happen if a person left his papers in a taxi. The offence in this Bill is one of disclosure. Leaving a document in a taxi accidentally is not a disclosure and such circumstances are therefore outside the scope of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, also raised a point of concern. It is true that if it is official information it is not necessary to prove that the defendant knew that it was an official document. The point is met by the requirement that the circumstances are such that the defendant had reason to expect the use to which the information might be put.
There are four elements to the offence, all of which the prosecution would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt. First, the prosecution must prove that it was official information which was disclosed. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that this provision does not and cannot deal with a disclosure which is not of official information, even if the information happened to be identical to the information held by a Crown servant. This offence, like all the other offences in the Bill, relates only to information, a document or other article which is or has been in the possession of a Crown servant or government contractor in his official capacity.

1059
Secondly, it must prove that that information could be used to give access to protected material. Thirdly, and most importantly, it must prove that the circumstances of the disclosure were such that it was reasonable to expect it might be used for that purpose. And fourthly, the access must be access without authority. These points properly cover the effective elements of this offence and provide proper protection for ensuring that frivolous or ill-based prosecutions cannot succeed.
The Committee will see from this description that the offence cannot be committed inadvertently. A person who gives such information is liable only if in the circumstances of his disclosure he has reason to expect that the information he disclosed might be used to obtain access to protected information. If he has no such reason, he does not commit an offence; nor of course would someone commit an offence if he gave access to someone who had proper authority to obtain such material.
This is therefore a proper and a necessary provision to protect against a real and serious danger. Its removal would leave an important loophole, easy to exploit. Those who knowingly give access to protected information commit as grave an offence as those who disclose it. If the Committee agrees that the information covered by the Bill should be protected by the criminal law, then it would be right to ensure that the Bill gives effective protection and cannot be evaded with such ease. To remove Clause 8(6) would create a substantial gap in that protection, allowing harmful disclosures to be made out of the reach of the law. I hope that the Committee will agree that the importance of this offence concerns the whole protective structure of the Bill and that in the light of my explanation the noble Lord might be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mishcon: I believe that the noble Earl has misunderstood the whole purpose of my remarks based on this amendment. I am not quarrelling with the fact that there could be an offence of the nature that he described which the Committee ought seriously to consider. I am saying that it is a little far-fetched to think in terms of somebody committing an offence by disclosing information when he does not know that a civil servant has it or has had anything to do with it. If a civil servant has that information, or had it in the past, it is an offence, whereas if a civil servant did not have it, but the person received if from another party, he would not be committing any offence.
My remarks were not addressed at an offence that I failed to be sure about after going through a very careful analysis, as did the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I just did not know what the offence was supposed to be. That was the predicament of the noble Lord, Lord Hemingford. The noble Earl read out what the offence is meant to be. The whole gravamen of what I was trying to say was that the present drafting is unintelligible and renders a judge quite incapable of guiding a jury properly and knowing what the offence is supposed to be. In my view the Committee cannot even consider the offence without there being clear words stating what the offence means.
1060
I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but I believe that I am reinforced in my belief by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Both of us accept that there may be an offence which ought to be covered by the Bill. We are saying that we cannot consider it at the moment because that offence does not appear to be clearly defined with the constituent elements that make it plain to the layman or even to a judge. In those circumstances I merely ask the Minister whether, in the light of our observations, he will take this away to see whether it ought to be redrafted, we hope before the Report stage. If he courteously says that that is what he will do, I shall withdraw the amendment. I repeat that my purpose is to know with what offence I am dealing. At the moment I do not.
Lord Renton: I believe that the noble Lord is reasonable in asking my noble friend to consider the drafting of this between now and the Report stage. I also hope that he will consider one of the points I made, but I cannot complain that he did not deal with it. In the first line of the subsection we see the words "if he discloses". We do not know what in the circumstances the word "discloses" means. To whom? To his wife? To anybody else? To a person also in authority? That presumably would not and should not give rise to an offence. Perhaps therefore the words "to any unauthorised person" should be used, but then we ask the question who is an authorised person in the circumstances? It is a difficult concept, but it is one which, (as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was good enough to say) has to be covered otherwise there will be a gap in the Bill.
We should be grateful to my noble friend Lord Ferrers for the full description that he gave of the Government's intentions. But in the light of the discussion I hope that he will consider this further because I do not believe that he and those advising him have fully considered the various issues which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and I have attempted to raise.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I hesitate to intervene again, but I wholly support what the noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, said. From reading the Bill I could not understand what the offence was. I should also like wholly to support what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said in response to the noble Earl's explanation. If neither he nor the noble Lord, Lord Renton, can understand what the offence is, what is a wretched layman such as myself to do? It seems to me important that the law should be vaguely intelligible to those to whom it applies. When I was listening to the noble Earl's explanation I wondered whether I should understand it at the end. I am afraid that I did not. I wondered whether, if the noble Earl had thrown his piece of paper away, he would have been able to explain the offence to us himself. I suspect he would not. I hope that the combined mystification of lawyers and laymen alike will persuade the noble Earl to take back the amendment and to produce something at Report which we can all understand.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: In Parliament I always dislike transferring something from Committee to Report. It usually leads one into trouble. But it is extremely difficult, in fact it is impossible, to visualise a better draft. I cannot help thinking that there ought to be one. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will be able to respond to the plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that he will look at this again without any guarantee that anything better can be produced.
Lord Ferrers: I always find the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, a difficult person to satisfy. First, he says that the whole clause is unintelligible and he sympathises with the poor judges who have to find their way through it. Then when I try to explain what the amendment means he castigates me and says that all I did was to read out a brief. That is perfectly true. I did for very good reasons, reasons which the noble Lord will understand. I hoped that that was being helpful, but the noble Lord said that it was not and that what he really wants is a redrafting.
I am conscious of what has been said here. I should refer to the question that my noble friend Lord Renton asked. He asked whether he creates an offence if he discloses information to his wife. The test lies in the reference to the circumstances to give access without authority. Disclosure to the wife allows circumstances unlikely to be those where he would be guilty of an offence. I fully understand the concern that the Committee has expressed. I shall certainly take this away and look at it again to see what can be done, if anything. I say this without any commitment because if the noble Lord, Lord Mischon, and other noble Lords find it difficult, there is probably a reason why the parliamentary draftsmen also do not find it easy. I shall certainly take into account what the Committee has said. Perhaps the noble Lord will be satisfied with that answer.
Lord Mishcon: I did not know that I was difficult to satisfy. I can only tell the noble Earl, with a smile from this Dispatch Box, that he is the most difficult Minister to convince. I am obliged to the noble Earl not only for having read out his brief, which was most helpful—I make that absolutely clear—but also for his promise to look at the drafting again in the light of what has been said.
I fully appreciate that the noble Earl gave no undertaking that the wording would be altered. I similarly give no undertaking that I shall not show how ridiculous this wording is if it is not altered. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
6.30 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 39:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Disclosure where public safety is threatened
.—

(1) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this Act to prove that —

(a) the information, document or other article in question revealed the existence of a serious and imminent threat to public health or safety; and

(b) effective action to protect the public from the threat had not been taken; and

(c) in the circumstances the disclosure was in the public interest having regard both to any benefit and to any damage that resulted or was likely to result from it.

(2) In the case of a Crown servant, government contractor, or person referred to in section 1(1) above subsection (1) of this section shall only apply if before the time of the alleged offence he had taken all reasonable steps to craw the threat to the attention of the appropriate authorities without effect.").

The noble Lord said: This is a compromise amendment and as such I trust that it will be regarded more favourably than was Amendment No. 38 which we discussed yesterday. Unlike that amendment, Amendment No. 39 does not touch upon crime, fraud or security matters. It limits the de facto public interest defence to cases where the health and safety of the British public are considered to be at risk.
It is a Conservative amendment—Conservative with a capital 'C'. That may surprise Members of the Committee because no names of Conservative Peers are tabled with the amendment. The explanation is that an almost identical amendment was tabled in another place by two extremely senior and distinguished Conservative honourable members—indeed, one was a right honourable member. Neither has been associated with the group of Conservative Back-Benchers who have been pressing for liberalisation of the Bill as a whole: that is, Mr. Aitken, Mr Alison, Mr. Churchill, Mr. Gorst, Mr. Shepherd and so forth. Their amendment was a one-off; it was their only deviation from supporting the general principle of the Bill.
Such an amendment is needed because under the Bill as it stands there can ostensibly be no threat of criminal prosecution in respect of matters revealed pertaining to public health and safety. However, that remains true only provided that no foreign states or international organisations are involved and that defence issues are not involved, even tangentially; in other words, provided that the provisions of Clauses 2, 3 and 6 are not infringed in the course of alerting the public to the dangers which face them.
But it is those exceptions which are potentially alarming from the point of view of public safety. It would mean that without explicit government permission it would be illegal to reveal that a foreign airline had been earmarked by terrorists for a possible bomb attack if the information was not generally known to the public. It would be illegal to reveal that hitherto unpublished fire hazards had been discovered in the Channel Tunnel. It would be illegal to reveal that a foreign shipping line had been identified as the route by which rabies was entering the country. It would be illegal to reveal that new hazards had been found in hormone-treated meat imported from a foreign country. If, in return for another country's support at the United Nations on an issue where the United Kingdom found itself in a minority we secretly agreed to take that country's toxic waste for reprocessing, it would be illegal to reveal the fact.
Let us suppose that this country was on the point of signing a contract with an oil-rich Middle Eastern country for the re-equipping of its air force in the face of intense competition from France, West Germany, Italy and Japan, with the prospect of vast benefits to our balance of payments and the promise of 20,000 jobs in unemployment blackspots. Let us say that the DHSS then discovered that a large consignment of that country's date exports to this country had been contaminated with listeria. The Government may have felt inclined to suppress such news until the contract had been signed for fear that otherwise, in a fit of pique, the other government might refuse to sign the contract and award it to France or Germany. They may have privately argued that, as the event occurred in the summer and most people eat dates at Christmas-time, the statistical probability of anyone dying from eating a date in the meantime was slender. A civil servant with medical expertise might believe that the Government were running a totally unacceptable risk. However, under the Bill as it stands it would be illegal for him to reveal his anxieties to a journalist.
Threats to safety devolving from defence matters are also effectively censored by the Bill as it stands. Therefore, it would be illegal to reveal that low-flying aircraft on training flights, or certain gunnery ranges in Dorset, Norfolk or elsewhere, constituted a greater danger to the public than had hitherto been generally imagined.
We are all worldly enough to acknowledge that, from time to time, hard-boiled realpolitik must of necessity be practised in this modern age as in all previous eras. Nevertheless, the health and safety of our people must remain paramount. I beg to move.
Lord Hemingford: The need for this amendment stems from the extraordinarily wide scope of the Bill in the area of defence and international relations, which we have already discussed at some length, and the general definition of what disclosures are damaging. They are located in Clauses 2 and 3, which state that an unauthorised disclosure is damaging if:
"it damages the capability of, or of any part of, the armed forces of the Crown to carry out their tasks"—
That task could have little to do with the defence of the realm, as was mentioned yesterday—
"or … it jeopardises the interests of the United Kingdom abroad"—
one cannot get much broader than that—
"or … seriously obstructs the promotion or protection by the United Kingdom of those interests"—
what a relief it is to find that the word "seriously" has been allowed to creep into the Bill—
"or endangers the safety of British citizens abroad".
I understand that that could mean that almost anything written about the Middle East, for example, might, if based on information from another country, be caught since it might endanger the safety of a hostage.
Those are wide definitions and they mean that information coming from another government or an international organisation could not be disclosed without authority, even if it revealed the existence
1064
of a serious and imminent threat to public health or safety and effective action had not been taken to protect the public from that threat.
As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, matters affecting health and safety which arise within the United Kingdom and have no defence or international connotations would not come within the scope of the Bill though they are covered by the present Act. In this amendment we are not dealing with internal information that has no international or defence connotations, and we are not dealing with spies or intelligence agents.
The amendment seeks to ensure that information about threats to public health or safety, if that information has an international or defence dimension, could be disclosed if on the balance of the argument the public interest was served by its being disclosed. The definition is narrow. The threat to public safety or health must be both serious and imminent and the defence would have to prove that no effective action had been taken to protect the public from it. But that is not all. The defence would also have to show that, if some damage resulted from the disclosure, it was outweighed by the public interest in it being disclosed; and a civil servant would also have to show that he or she had exhausted the internal machinery for dealing with such matters.
In an era when the export of acid rain, the disposal across international borders of toxic waste and matters like the danger of faults in aircraft and the possibility of infection of imported food are all matters upon which international organisations and governments exchange information, it is appropriate to require a defence of this sort. That is especially so when commercial considerations might well result in a government trying to keep secret information on such matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, gave many examples of how that might arise and I shall not seek to give others. However, before any of us begins to feel that this public interest is a carte blanche for disloyal leakers, a coach and horses, a massive wedge or any of the other exaggerated metaphors which we have heard about public interest, we should recognise how narrowly it is drawn and how rarely it is likely to come into effect. I do not believe that it would be wise to argue that, because it would only rarely be used, we should not have it at all. I believe that it is quite conceivable to imagine circumstances in which it might be necessary. I hope that the Committee will accept that this is a public interest defence so tightly drawn that it can be adopted.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I apologise for coming in after the amendment has been moved and seconded but I have been unavoidably detained upstairs. However, I have come in especially to deal with this amendment because I had an experience when I was in government which casts serious doubts upon an amendment of this sort.
Perhaps I may say in advance in regard to many of the amendments before the Committee, that I am absolutely against legislating in terms which give civil servants the impression that they have a duty

1065
or right to monitor all that is going on around them and to make a statement to inform their fellow citizens of something which they deem to be of national interest. That is not the direction in which we should indicate the conduct of civil servants. I submit that there must be an alternative to that course of action.
Perhaps I may now come to this amendment. When I was in government I was appointed chairman of a Cabinet Committee on winter emergencies which was concerned with fuel, power, the possibility of power cuts and the repetition of what had become known as a "Shinwell winter". Our duty was to take account of the best predictions which we could get of what the winter was likely to be like and to make decisions accordingly. Therefore, we received advice from the Meteorological Office, with all the computer and other aids which they had, that it was possible that we were to have a winter in five. A winter in five was severe but a winter in ten was going to be a fairly bad winter. However, ours was to be a winter in five.
The question then arose: How do we meet this possible severity of winter? We went through all the possibilities; namely, the coal stocks, transport, stocks in the hands of the electricity and gas industries as they were at that time—all the precautions which could be taken silently and without conspicuous public attention.
We then had to decide what we should say to the public. Should we alert them to the possibility and send them into the shops to buy supplementary fuel appliances and more paraffin? Should we import large numbers of candles from Belgium? What should we do? After careful consideration and taking account of all risks we decided to do nothing. We decided to take all the precautions we could in private and not make a public announcement.
What about some busybody of a civil servant who thought: this Government are playing fast and loose with the public? They have a warning from the Meteorological Office and they have decided to suppress it. When you consider what the press will do to you if you take the wrong decision or even take none at all, you have to be very careful about taking risks. I believe that we had the worst press which we have ever had from the point of view of the stability of government, the dignity of Parliament and the public interest. We cannot afford to take any risks at all with the press in its present reckless mood. In those circumstances we were obviously taking a risk. A civil servant could have taken advantage of this amendment to say, "I feared that the public health and safety would be put in jeopardy. All the fire grates of England would be empty, all the lights would go out, all the electricity would go off, all due to the fact that this Government and their Cabinet Committee did not have the guts to tell the public". That is my objection to this amendment.
However, that is only part of the general objection I have to giving civil servants the impression that they have some kind of right to communicate directly with the public if they think that there is something which the public should know and if they have—and
1066
one wonders whether they do—taken all practical steps to have the position remedied through ordinary channels. I do not believe that we can take this risk. I believe that we are giving the wrong sort of signal all the time. After all, the sort of civil servant with whom we are dealing is not down at the bottom because he has avenues for taking his troubled conscience higher, which is what a civil servant should do. We are dealing with higher-up civil servants who feel that they have nobody to go to because those mostly to blame are Ministers.
After all, what was the attack which was levelled against Ponting? It was the fact that he had divulged something regarding the alleged behaviour of the Prime Minister. Where Ministers are involved, one has to look to higher grade civil sevants for possible assumption of responsibility for the national interest. I still believe that there must be something higher than the staff counsellor whom we have at present to whom the higher grade civil servant can go if he has serious problems with his conscience, his sense of honour and his responsibility. I am sorry to intrude on the Committee but I do not believe that many Ministers have had the experience of having sailed near the winter wind in trying to deal with winter emergencies.
Lord Renton: The defence proposed in this amendment overlaps with the public interest defence which was the subject of a long discussion at the opening of our Committee stage. This amendment can be dealt with more shortly because it provides a defence for a person charged with an offence under this Bill. However, the offences under this Bill are limited to offences relating to security and intelligence defence, international relations and crime and special investigation powers and some ancillary offences which arise out of those principal offences.
Noble Lords who have moved the amendment made it clear that they are concerned to protect civil servants and government contractors and so on in a much wider range of circumstances. We have even had acid rain mentioned and all kinds of threats to public health, but public health is not part of the subject matter of this Bill. I suppose that one could say that germ warfare was the nearest that we have come to threats to public health, but that is not what noble Lords have in mind. Therefore, because this clause evisages a defence to offences which do notarise under the Bill the amendment is one with which we should not trouble ourselves for very long.
Lord Belstead: Although I recognise that the noble Lords, Lord Monson and Lord Hemingford, have understandable concerns, we are treading very much the same ground as we trod on earlier amendments. The points that have been put undoubtedly require an answer and perhaps I may say, first, that I hope it is some reassurance to the Committee that the Bill does not unnecessarily inhibit action taken on the matters referred to in the amendment; namely, serious and imminent threats to public health or safety. I hope I can persuade the Committee that there is no need to introduce a general defence for something for which the Bill creates no general offence and which in most circumstances it will

1067
never touch at all. I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, whose appearance in this Committee is most welcome so far as the Government are concerned, that for various reasons this amendment is not desirable.
The Committee will know that there is no offence created in this Bill for the disclosure of information about public health or safety matters. Indeed, in general these are among the vast areas of official information to which, because of the Bill, criminal law on official secrets, will no longer apply. I suggest, therefore, that there is no need to provide a defence where there is no offence. I believe the provision may therefore be based on some misapprehension.
There is an assumption that there is likely to be material which is protected by the Bill which relates to serious and imminent threats to public health or safety and which ought to be disclosed. I want to say a few words about terrorism but for the moment I ask the Committee to recognise that such material can only be covered by the Bill if it comes within the six categories protected under the Bill. It could then only be covered by the amendment if the information identifies a serious and imminent threat which must be disclosed in the public interest but which is not in fact disclosed or acted upon by the responsible authorities. I suggest that that is unlikely.
Even if all these things come to pass in the areas to which this material is conceivably likely to relate, there are clear harm tests in the Bill which the prosecution has to prove. In practice, it would be difficult in the extreme for the prosecution to prove those tests to the satisfaction of a jury in the sort of case that can be envisaged under the amendment; that it to say, an imminent threat to the health of our citizens which can only be averted by an unlawful disclosure. Therefore, I very much take the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton that it is not easy to consider exactly what the offences are to which this amendment refers.
Briefly I pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, regarding foreign confidence. I ask the Committee to remember the scope of the new clause. It relates to information about a serious and imminent threat to public health or safety. I think the Committee will agree that it would be wholly unreasonable for another state or international organisation to provide us with information of such a kind—an imminent threat to public health which ought to be disclosed—and then expect us to keep it to ourselves. In practice they do not do that. No government would agree to deal with such information on that basis.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, raised a question of defence in relation to this amendment. It would only be an offence under the Bill to disclose defence information if the tests of harm set out in Clause 3 are met. The prosecution would have to persuade the jury that a serious and imminent threat to the health or safety of the citizens of this country could not be revealed without, for example, damaging the capability of our Armed Forces. Again, I feel that that is something which could not be met because one has to get past the harm test.
1068
There is one area of public safety which I think is relevant to this amendment which must be mentioned; that is, information about terrorist activity. Surely the right thing for someone who is aware of a serious and imminent terrorist threat is immediately to bring it to the attention of those responsible for deciding what action to take. It cannot be sensible—and it has not been suggested by noble Lords who support the amendment—to enable someone to make an unlawful disclosure of such life and death matters off his own bat when he may not have all the facts and cannot properly assess the best course to take. This must be left, in this particular area of terrorism, to those responsible if lives are be be protected.
I do not intend to return to the points of principle which the Committee discussed yesterday in relation to a different form of public interest defence except to confirm that those points remain applicable to this new clause as I believe they did to the earlier one; namely, on this side of the Committee we do not believe that the criminal law of official secrets can reasonably require juries to balance such undefined concepts as benefit or, indeed, damage to the public interest. We do not believe the law should permit damage knowingly to be done to the interests properly protected by the Bill.
The risk with this amendment is that irresponsible, ill-judged and highly damaging actions might be taken by people encouraged by this provision which would not increase public safety but which would leave the criminal courts with the nearly impossible task of balancing uncertain and conflicting considerations well after the damage has been done. Therefore, on that basis and with the assurance that the amendment addresses areas which in the main are not in any way covered by the Bill, I hope that noble Lords will feel that they do not need to press the amendment.
Lord Monson: The ministerial experience of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in a bleak mid-winter 40-odd years ago was extremely interesting, but I am sure he will agree that it has nothing to do with matters of public safety, which is what the amendment covers. As to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to whom I always listen with great interest and with whom I so often find myself in agreement, I was a trifle disappointed that he appeared to be dismissive about public health and safety and, in effect, argued that considerations of good relations with foreign countries, for example, should take priority over matters of public safety. I hope that I have not misunderstood the noble Lord and if I have I apologise.
I listened with great care, as I always do, to the Leader of the House. Again, the question comes back to whether Ministers will invariably behave as they ought to. Will they invariably put public safety above considerations of avoiding offence to a foreign country? If one could be certain that they would invariably do so there would be no need for this amendment. However, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, there has been a certain amount of silence on my right, to put it mildly. I

1069
should like to read carefully what the Leader of the House said and possibly return to this matter at a later stage. For the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 9 to 11 agreed to.
7 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton Lord Thomas of Swynnerton moved Amendment No. 40:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("Disclosure of information.
.—

(1) A person who is or has been a member of the security and intelligence services or who has been notified that he is subject to the provisions of section 1(1) above may, only if he has obtained the consent of the Secretary of State, publish, or disclose for the purpose of a publication information which is or has been in his possession by virtue of his position as a member of those services or in the course of his work while the notification is or was in force.

(2) The Secretary of State shall not withhold his consent under subsection (1) above if he is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the publication can take place without —

(a) endangering national security; or

(2) causing harm to the work of the security and intelligence services or any part of them; or

(c) otherwise being contrary to the national interest.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment was originally drafted by my noble friend Lord Bethell who unfortunately is not able to be here today. I should like to say to begin with, as I said on Second Reading, that I think the Government should be generally congratulated on this liberalising Bill. The Opposition were a shade churlish in their general approach to the Bill at that stage.
I declare an interest since, if this amendment is incorporated into the Bill, I might benefit because at sometime in the future I might wish to write an historical work that drew on some of the works that might themselves have been published in consequence of this amendment. As the Committee will be aware, the amendment is extremely modestly phrased. It merely seeks to formalise what I believe has been a recent practice. In the past this practice has enabled some remarkable memoirs to be written. I do not refer to those written by Ministers, though, as a matter of fact, they do come into the category that is considered here, since, as we have been reminded, as regards this Bill Ministers are considered to be Crown servants. I am speaking of those who are members of the services specified here.
In the past that procedure has enabled books to be written by, for example, Sir Paul Dukes, Mr. Montague Woodhouse, Sir Robert Bruce-Lockhart, Sir Percy Sillitoe and by my right honourable friend Mr. Julian Amery, who is still a Member of the other place. Those books have been published. My right honourable friend Mr. Amery pointed out in another place at the Second Reading of this Bill that some of the books may be regarded as actively inspiring. I agreed with him when he said that the memoir of his service by Sir Paul Dukes was a really inspiring book and that it might serve as a kind of recruiting station for those who wish to join one of those services.
It may be said that it is undesirable to spell out in a legal document a practice that is known to have worked well in the past. I believe it is correct that one of the purposes of this Bill, as it is one of the purposes of the Security Service Bill which is also proceeding through Parliament, is to regularise procedures and institutions whose basis in the past was founded on custom and whose discipline was based on loyalty. There is also the fact there is just an indication from reading the debates relating to this Bill in another place—I am looking at the statements made by the Minister of State at the Home Office and by the Home Secretary—that the Government might be contemplating a slightly more restrictive attitude than they had displayed in the past. Understandably, no doubt, they were influenced by the Spycatcher case. I believe that this point was made by my right honourable friend Mr. Julian Amery in another place in his speech at the Report stage of the Bill on 22nd February at cols. 1021 and 1022 of Hansard.
Others may feel that the circumstances that this amendment envisages are already adequately covered in the Bill by the frequently used phrase which implies that it is all right for any information to be revealed if lawful authority has been given. The amendment goes further than that, because it defines in what circumstances lawful authority should be given. It states specifically that it should be a decision of the Secretary of State. If necessary it could be a political decision. Under the terms of the amendment, it will be seen that the Secretary of State, if he felt it essential, could stop practically any publication if he thought fit. However, the amendment obliges him to think fit.
I have one or two additional points to make. It is assumed that it is likely that in the future some public servants who have served in these organisations and agencies or Ministers or others who have been in touch with these agencies, may wish—once the events in which they have participated are over—to write about their work and their achievements or perhaps to contribute to the works of others who are studying or working on the period.
I believe that some Members of the Committee may say that that should never happen. I suppose that might be the case in an ideal world but the fact is that this is not an ideal world. Furthermore, I am not at all sure that in an ideal world it would be desirable to refrain from mentioning such activities. In a really ideal world it would not be necessary to have a security or intelligence service at all, but that is unlikely ever to apply. I have the feeling that such prohibitions as were looked upon as generally necessary as regards even the mere existence of these organisations probably had an effect contrary to the purpose of such prohibitions. They probably stimulated an unhealthy interest in them. The fact is that it is because of unlawfully leaked information that so much is now known about the history of the security and intelligence services of the past generation. By a most bizarre twist, I suspect that the average reader of the Sunday press probably knows more about those departments of state than any others. I do not believe that the departmental arguments in the Department of Education and

1071
Science are anything like so well known as those that seem to have occurred in the security services in the 1940s and 1950s.
It might also be said that a blanket ban on all discussion about work done in these services, however long ago, might diminish the humanity of those who worked within them. Again, my right honourable friend Mr. Julian Amery in another place devoted a passage in his speech at the Second Reading to that point. It was a good and in many ways a moving speech and I recommend Members of the Committee to look at it.
I believe also that it is fair to point out that interest in the work of these organisations is not always sensation-seeking. Sir Alexander Cadogan remarked that intelligence is the neglected dimension in the history of foreign policy. I believe that he said that in 1939. It has certainly been even more the case since 1945. The fact is that there is likely to be historical interest and concern about the role that these services have played in the formation and enactment of policies once those policies are no longer a matter of current politics.
There is a third point which is that our actions in these matters have to be taken into account against the fact that other countries, including countries with whom we are extremely intimate—such as the United States—have different practices and their publications may well affect our own judgments on these matters.
I want to say in parenthesis that I should like to see a time specified after which it would be possible for historians to examine and scrutinise the papers of these services, just as they do with the papers of other government departments. It may well be that 30 years would be too short a period; it may be that 50 years would be the appropriate period—I do not know. But at least there would be a single time limit.
The argument which is given against access for historical purposes to such papers of the past is that that would be an admission that intelligence and security are necessary in time of peace. But of course by this time everyone knows, and indeed almost everyone accepts, that intelligence and security are as necessary in time of peace as they are in time of war. Probably most people recognise that since 1945, and perhaps indeed since 1917, peace in relation to one great power has been a very relative term. In the end, historians will, whatever is decided on these matters, wish to make judgments on the issues concerned and indeed will do so. They will wish to pay tribute to work which is well done and, in their own way, to blame that which is not well done.
As all noble Lords are aware, the poet Shelley thought that poets were the unacknowledged legislators, and I have no doubt that many noble Lords will feel that historians are the unacknowledged magistrates on these occasions. I beg to move.
Lord Dacre of Glanton: I put my name to this amendment, which was drafted by my noble friend Lord Bethell and proposed by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, because I believe that, if it were adopted, it would be helpful not only to those
1072
blameless writers who might wish to add a little to the historical record, as Cabinet Ministers and others do, but also to the Government themselves, because the present blanket veto has been stretched too tight so that certain splits and holes have appeared in the blanket through which moths of different sizes and kinds fly out, or will fly out, in different directions.
I can envisage four such holes or moths. There are the great big powerful moths like Cabinet Ministers. I remember that in the last war the late Lord Norwich, Mr. Duff Cooper as he then was, was for a time Minister in charge of security. In that capacity he naturally came to know the details of an operation which we at that time called Operation Mincemeat. He took advantage of this fact after the war to authorise himself to write a book about it, which caused great indignation in the security services and I was credibly informed that the question of prosecuting Lord Norwich was seriously considered. But it was decided that there was a certain jeopardy in this and as an alternative it was decided to authorise Mr. Ewen Montagu, who, as a naval officer, had taken part in organising the operation, to write a corrective work instead.
Then there are the small moths who merely fray the edge of the blanket, people who do not write specific books on intentions but perhaps, in writing memoirs, histories or even articles, touch lightly on the corners of the subject. They, too, of course come under the ban. Then at a lower level in the bed there are those sedentary wingless moths who do not come out through any of the holes, but whisper through the holes to outsiders who hitherto have been inaccessible to the ban, but under the new liberal measure will of course be equally liable to prosecution. Finally, there are bold, strong, migratory moths who have the wing-power to fly off to Tasmania. All these lacunae weaken the case for the prosecution.
The Home Secretary has stated in another place that authorisation will be rare and given only in exceptional cases, and that the Government must take action to enforce the duty of confidentiality; that is to say, the Government must prosecute and will not permit. That is much too rigid and quite unnecessary. It would be self-destructive. It also creates great difficulties for the perfectly honourable and reputable people who may apply for permission.
There was a particular case a few years ago—a rather shocking case, in some ways, because it concerned the late Mr. Gordon Welchman. Mr. Welchman, whom I knew very well in the war, was one of the cryptographers at Bletchley; one of the greatest of British cryptographers. We owe an immense debt to him. He was one of those who played a major part in the deciphering of the Enigma machine. He wrote an article for a periodical which I mentioned when speaking to another amendment yesterday. This excellent work, which I recommend—I am acting as a sort of advertising agent for it—was called Intelligence and National Security and much of it was written by former members of the intelligence services.
As I said, Mr. Welchman wrote an article for the periodical and as he lived in America he asked the

1073
editor to clear it with the Ministry of Defence. The editor wrote to the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry wrote back to the editor saying that no deletions need be made to the article. When the article was published, poor Mr. Welchman received a letter which I can only describe as pompous and censorious from the director of GCHQ, a letter which has since been published. I think one can agree with the colleague of Mr. Welchman who described it as a prime example of the lengths to which GCHQ's paronoia about the preservation of ancient secrets will carry them.
Paranoia and ancient secrets—these are the two dangers. Paranoia is the danger and it is the antiquity of the secrets which makes so much of the implicit illiberalism which is part of this otherwise liberal Bill, so counter-productive. The official who wrote that letter seemed to be quite unaware of the rapidity of change in the technology of intelligence gathering. In 10 years, in 20 years and certainly in 30 years the whole technology has changed and the secrets of the period of the last war are as ancient as the secrets of the Napoleonic war. There is no reason at all why half of them should not be published.
The technology of intelligence in fact changes very much quicker than the minds of the officials. I believe that no harm would come if we adopted the amendment; positive good would come, in particular because of the last paragraph in which we suggest that it should be the rule that members and former members of the intelligence service may do this. They do not have to go grovelling on their knees to obscurantist officials. There is a right which they have as citizens to write if they want, provided they obey the rules. They will obey the rules if the rules are made sufficiently liberal, and nothing will be lost.
Like my noble friend Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, I should like there to be a 30-year rule—it need not be 30 years, it could be 25 years, it does not matter—so that those ancient secrets can be published. Most of them are known. As Sir Lewis Namier once said, most secrets are in print if you know where to look for them. Most documents are available. Some documents which are inaccessible in the Public Records Office, all reference to them deleted from the index, are in the House of Lords Library and can be read by any researcher who wishes to do so.
I urge noble Lords to consider favourably this amendment. I think it will do no harm to anyone and will in fact make the liberal Bill which we are discussing easier to enforce.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: After some years away from responsibility in such matters, I may be a little rusty as to the procedures in the security services. My first reaction to my honourable friend's amendment was that it was unnecessary because it very closely represented what actually happened. In fact, what happened in the well known case to which I referred on Second Reading, that of the publication of Sir John Masters's book The Double Cross, was that all the procedures available were gone through and a satisfactory result followed.
1074
Judgment on such matters in those days and maybe now, was left to the good judgment of the Secretary of State, with the Prime Minister in reserve. Incidentally, the name of the Prime Minister is not mentioned in the amendment.
My doubt, rather anticipated by my noble friend, is whether it is wise to try to formalise such matters in the language of a statute, as my noble friend does in the amendment in subsection (2). Perhaps the Leader of the House will agree—I hope he will—to consider this matter between now and the Report stage. I am bound to say at this stage that I should prefer, in what are bound to be very exceptional cases, that legislation should not try to place conditions on the judgment of the Secretary of State or, at the end of the day, of the Prime Minister. I think that most members of the secret services would prefer that informality to the statute language which is proposed.
Anyone listening to this debate over yesterday and today might well have been left with the impression that members of the secret services consisted of a lot of people waiting impatiently to tell their story, to reveal their secrets, and that they were discontented with their lot. Judging by the 10 years in which I had to deal with these matters, I must say that is a caricature of the reality. Those people choose their profession with their eyes open. They gel. a kick out of practising their profession. They have a strong vested interest in secrecy, for the best of reasons: that careless talk, let alone a leak, may cost a life. I have no hesitation in saying that they have no sympathy with somebody like Mr. Wright, whose revelations are regarded as a danger to them and to their own security. In my experience the secret services are manned by men and women who are serious, intelligent, dedicated and patriotic, who take pride in the responsibility placed on them of protecting the nation's security. We must be extremely careful in Parliament not to make their task more difficult and make them more vulnerable.
I hope that my noble friend will look sympathetically at the amendment, although I hope he rather comes to the conclusion, as I do, that it is better that there should be less formality than is proposed.
Lord Grimond: The Government will have heard the arguments put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, and Lord Dacre of Glanton, who spoke as eminent historians and with wide knowledge of the subject that we are discussing. I hope they will also have read the speeches of Mr. Amery, Mr. Aitken and others in the House of Commons so I shall not repeat the arguments which must be well known to the Government by now.
I would emphasise not only that there is a strong historical reason for accepting the amendment, but that it is highly in the general public interest. It is very desirable that the public should know about our successes in the past. It is desirable that they should have a full picture of how our affairs were conducted. As has been said, much of the actual technology would be out of date; but, nevertheless, it would be of great interest. It is particularly important because those in these services are naturally silent when they are serving; and, after they have retired they should

1075
be entitled to write memoirs so long as they are not damaging. I would have thought that 30 years, which has been suggested, would ensure that no great damage would arise. However, there is the well established custom that any such memoirs must be submitted for approval. That seems to have worked and I do not quite understand why it is being given up, if it is being given up.
It has been alleged that the Wright and Cavendish books were both offered to the Government for vetting and that they refused to accept or even to look at them. If they had done so it seems quite possible that we should have been saved a very great deal of trouble and ignominy in the past year. I should like to know whether that is true; and, if so, why the Government put a blanket veto on those books. I should also like to know whether the present rule would mean, as has been suggested, that Bruce-Lockhart's book could not have been published and, indeed, that many of the autobiographies of Prime Ministers could not now be published. In fact, I should very much like the Government to explain what, in their view, the position would be if this Bill becomes an Act, because it seems to me from reading the proceedings in the House of Commons that that it is far from clear.
The Minister of State in the House of Commons in December went to considerable trouble to explain the present procedure, clearly indicating that the procedure was still in use. That was the procedure for submitting works for examination and some right of appeal if they were turned down. He ended by saying that the sole criterion for authorising publication was whether the publication of a particular piece of information would jeopardise national security directly or indirectly. That clearly implies that if it is not so damaging to national security, it can be published. That was at least understood to be the position until the Wright and Cavendish experiences. However, I am now told that even a book by Sir Michael Howard, a Regius professor—at least I think he still is a Regius professor—which I understand was encouraged, if not contracted for, by the Government, has been held up. I can hardly believe that fact and I look forward to hearing whether the Government will deny it.
However, later in the discussions in another place the Secretary of State appeared to say that there is now a complete embargo on any writings by members of the intelligence and security services about the information which they accumulate during their career. When he was asked whether Prime Ministers, for instance, would be allowed to publish their memoirs, he said that the present situation would continue under the law.
Now what is the law? Is the law that no such publication can take place? I say that because certainly that is what he plainly inferred later in his speech when he said that "there is no expectation of a right to publication even hedged about with conditions." I am not quite certain whether by "a right to publication" he meant actual publication. However, there seems to be a great deal of evidence that the Government changed their attitude between
1076
the Second Reading of the Bill in another place and the later stages. Now we are indeed in danger of having a blanket veto on all such publications by members of the services.
It may well be that the old system should be tightened up, that more discussion should take place, and so on. However, I cannot believe that that is right; I cannot believe that it adds anything to our security. Indeed, I think that it will do considerable damage, and probably has already done so in regard to the Wright and Cavendish cases. No one can be satisfied with the handling of the Wright case, and surely we cannot continue with the present situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Home, suggested that we do not need this provision written into a statute. Were it not for recent experience I should agree with him. If it were the case that the present custom could continue without any trouble, I do not think that we would need a statute. However, there seems to be a great deal of evidence from the Bill itself and from what was said in another place that it is in fact the Government's intention to impose an absolute blanket veto. But, however many holes there will be in the veto, that veto will be the law.
I must dissent from the view constantly expressed by the Government that we need not worry about this sort of thing because the Attorney-General will put it right. He is a sensible man and he will not enforce the law. That seems to be a most extraordinary argument—that we should have to rely on the Attorney-General not to enforce the law. Surely we should draft a law which is enforceable if necessary.
Therefore I hope that the Government will either assure us that this new clause is unnecessary—that we can go back to the assurances given by the Minister of State and disregard the speeches made by the Secretary of State, and indeed parts of the Bill itself—or that they will accept the clause, which to my mind can do nothing but good to the services, to the public, to the writing of history and also to the incomes of future Prime Ministers.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I wish only to make a few observations, particularly in relation to the American experience, because I think it is desirable to look at the question as to how such matters are now handled by the Central Intelligence Agency. This organisation obviously carries within it far more secrets than are possessed by any British intelligence organisation. I shall do so, if I may, by referring to one particular case, that of a Soviet defector called Yuri Nosenko. He went over to the Americans in 1964. He gave the CIA a great deal of extremely valuable information. Subsequently, however, he was questioned about some possible link between Lee Harvey Oswald, the man who murdered President Kennedy, and the KGB. Later the then head of the counter-intelligence branch of the CIA, Mr. Angleton, acting on the basis of information which he had received from another defector, Mr. Golitsyn, came to the conclusion that Mr. Nosenko was a KGB plant. Then without the knowledge of the head of the CIA, he created a small prison for Nosenko at a secret base outside Washington. This

1077
unhappy man was kept there for 1,227 days. On 292 of those days he was questioned. Sometimes he was interrogated for periods of 24 hours without a break, and the guards were forbidden to talk to him.
I think it is interesting to look at this case for one particular reason; namely, the way in which the matter of the conduct of the CIA counter-intelligence branch was dealt with in the memoirs of the former head of the CIA, Admiral Stansfield Turner. It seems to me in a matter of this sort, where major issues were involved and where it was said by Admiral Stansfield Turner, among others, that on this occasion the CIA had behaved as ruthlessly as the KGB, that it was altogether right that it should first of all be exposed to severe criticism, as it was, and then analysed by the man who subsequently became the head of the agency.
Can it really be argued by anyone that the CIA has been weakened as a result of the revelations about this particular episode and the way in which CIA training and operational procedures have been subsequently changed to avoid any repetition of such conduct? Surely the reverse is the case. Public confidence in the United States grew to the extent to which it was made quite clear that such improper behaviour would not be tolerated in the future. There was honest exposure of the whole situation.
However the Bill is changed in the future, it seems to me to be inconceivable that a former head of MI5 or MI6 would in fact be allowed to write such a frank book. However, it is right to look at the question because in the light of recent events it seems—to quote, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Dacre—that the idea of maintaining some form of blanket veto over all memoirs by former officers of MI5 or MI6 simply will not work. That fact has been recognised in the United States. One of the principal reasons for that being the case is the existence of the first amendment to the Constitution. But what happens now in relation to former officers of the CIA is that they are required under the terms of their contracts to submit their books to the agency before they are published. Indeed, I think that there has only been one case where a former employee of the CIA has broken his contractural obligation, and that concerned Mr. Frank Snapp in 1978. That system appears to work with considerable success.
I must say that I find it exceptionally difficult to understand how in the light of the experience of the CIA it can be seriously maintained that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, is objectionable. In my view it is far more limited and it gives far greater power to Ministers than is the situation is the United States. It seems to me that the Government's present position in trying to impose a blanket veto has been demonstrated to be entirely ineffective in this country. I suspect that it will be shown to be ineffectual in the future if they persist with that policy. The Committee has before it a moderate and reasonable proposal which the Government would be wise to accept.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend Lord Thomas, with his distinguished and academic background, has highlighted the natural and historical interest which
1078
writers have in writing about such matters. It has been a subject which has always caused interest, and my noble friend was right to have introduced the amendment in such a moderate and understanding way.
I enjoyed listening to my noble friend Lord Dacre and following his analogies of moths whispering through holes to outsiders. I found that that extended one's imagination considerably, but he made his point only too clearly.
By the amendment we are inviting the Committee to approve a provision relating to the disclosure of some of the most senstive information relating to the security of the nation and to adopt a presumption that that kind of information may be published unless the Secretary of State can show good reason otherwise. It is fair to point out that that is not the approach which we have taken in Clause 1 to the unauthorised disclosure of security or intelligence material by members and former members of the services or by notified people, for good reasons. I do not believe that it would be sensible to take a different approach in respect of full-blown publications.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, said that the public should know how these things operate. I have a different view from that of the noble Lord. I do not believe that it is right that the public should know how all our security and intelligence services operate and how information on national security should be portrayed.
Lord Grimond: I must have been extremely difficult to understand, even by my standards. I was talking entirely in the past tense—20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago. Does the Minister really believe that it is vital that we should know nothing about how security ever operated in the whole of history?
7.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, is well aware that the whole concept of those who join the security and intelligence services is that they do so knowing full well that they keep what secrets they have and do not divulge them. I shall come later to whether that should be done after 20 or 30 years.
The new clause creates a presumption for and, let us be fair, a pressure towards disclosure which is frankly inconsistent with the provisions contained in Clause 1. The new clause sets up a special procedure to facilitate the publication of information by members, or former members, of the security and intelligence services and by notified people. We are not talking only about retired members of the services, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, referred. The new clause also covers serving members. We are not talking about those people publishing their memoirs. We are also talking about them assisting a third party to write about the services. We are not just talking about the authors of academic or historical works, however distinguished and respectable they may be We are talking about anyone who wants to publish anything about the services. We are creating a system and a presumption which would wrongly, and I think unfairly,

1079
encourage members and former members of the services to embark upon books about their work. Not only that, it would also leave them open to pressures from people outside the services to discuss at least the possibility of assisting them in producing their own detailed books about the work of the services.
The amendment makes it clear that information can be given, and publications can be made, by a member or a former member of the services or a notified person provided only that the consent of the Secretary of State has been obtained. I believe that my noble friend said that the Secretary of State can stop practically anything. The amendment provides that the Secretary of State must not withhold that consent if he is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that publication would not endanger national security or cause harm to the work of the services, or otherwise be contrary to the national interest.
I valued the remarks, if I may say so, of my noble friend Lord Home, who said that it is bad to put into statute pressures upon the Secretary of State. I believe that the amendment does precisely that.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, asked what law deals with such publication. At the moment, as he is aware, the law on disclosures is Section 2 of the 1911 Act. It relates to the disclosure of official information without authorisation. If Parliament agrees, that law is to be replaced by the Bill under which disclosure of security and intelligence, made without lawful authority, is an offence. The noble Lord will see that throughout the Bill.
The amendment not only permits such works to be reproduced with authority, it makes it incumbent upon the Secretary of State not to withhold his consent other than in specific circumstances; in other words, all the pressures are on for publication. I can understand the reasons why some people wish to do that. I do not believe that it is right. I do not believe that it is right when we are dealing with the nation's secrets and the methods used by the security and intelligence services. I do not believe that the provisions in the Bill relating to authorised disclosures need the additional and separate statutory procedure proposed by my noble friend's amendment.
Members and former members of the services know that they can seek advice. Of course, in the rare exceptional case, authority for proposed publications or other forms of disclosure can be countenanced. There are also procedures for obtaining such authority for others engaged on similar matters within government. There is no need and no advantage insetting out those matters in primary legislation.
I appreciate that my noble friend's objective is to ensure that members of the services might occasionally be able to write for, or contribute to, publications or pass on their information to other authors. I know that he recognises the paramount need to sustain the nation's security and not to make damaging disclosures. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made it clear in another place that we
1080
believe that authority for disclosures within that area must continue to be given only in rare and exceptional circumstances. Of course, much will depend upon the circumstances. It will rarely be possible to allow a former member of the services to publish full-blown memoirs about his work in the services. On the other hand, an academic work, primarily on another subject, for example East/West relations, which is such as to contain only incidental references to the author's work, might be a different matter.
The Bill sets out the principles for the disclosure of official information relating to security or intelligence matters. It establishes the principle that such disclosures must be made only with lawful authority.
I do not think that there is any difference between my noble friend and myself on that. It makes it clear that any unauthorised disclosures by members or former members of the security and intelligence services and notified people are bound to be harmful. I venture to hope that my noble friend will agree broadly with that. Having gone that far I do not think it would be right in this legislation then to establish some separate and different procedure with separate and different criteria—indeed separate and different criteria in respect only of the the authorisation of publications, and briefings for publications by those people—and those people alone. I see no substantial grounds for introducing a special legislative provision which will result in encouraging publications and disclosures, particularly when the relevant provisions in the Bill rightly point clearly in the opposite direction.
I would only add that there is nothing in this Bill which prevents a former member of the security services, or indeed anyone else, from engaging in historical studies and writings. Historians, like other writers, come in various shapes and sizes; some of them are in your Lordships' House. Anyone who is involved with this kind of work knows the thrill of disclosing some long-lost manuscript or archival record. Modern historians—faced with such a plethora of published material—may look for a similar excitement from some indiscretion or from some unauthorised disclosure, believing, sometimes wrongly, that the medium is the message and that that message must always be true. But members of the services and those who look to them for information cannot fairly expect routine or regular authority to make disclosures of their work, however upright the cause.
My noble friend Lord Thomas and the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, said, "Why not 30 years?" I listened to that with interest; but the security of the country still depends on much information not being made public, even after so apparently long a period. So the safety of those who are involved at the time, and often also their surviving relatives, is not prejudiced. I could not give the Committee any cause to hope that the proposal would be acceptable.
I think that my noble friend has done us a service in enabling this highly important matter to be discussed. It is a subject which is of intense interest and one which I know is close to his heart. I hope that nevertheless, having inspired the debate and

1081
these considerations, my noble friend will think it prudent and proper not to press his amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Before the noble Lord sits down, would he be good enough to deal with the point I raised in relation to the Central Intelligence Agency? It was a point which I am afraid he has not dealt with in any way at all.
Earl Ferrers: I did not do so because I did not think it particularly relevant to the subject. The noble Lord asked me to deal with a point, but I did not think that dealing with the Central Intelligence Agency was particularly relevant to what we are discussing. We are discussing the future arrangements for the security services and the divulging of any information about them. I have explained to the Committee what the present position is and how the law operates. I have explained how the law will operate if Parliament approves the Bill as it is at the moment. Other countries have their own methods of dealing with their own problems.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Without wishing to cross-examine the noble Earl at length, I should like to ask whether he realises that the procedures which have been introduced in the largest intelligence organisation in the free world are directly relevant to the issues which we have been debating this evening. If the Americans can do that without any grievous damage to their national security of the kind which the noble Earl has been talking about, how can he conceivably say that it is impossible for us to introduce similar procedures?
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Harris, is remarkable for one quality he tries to transpose one particular set of cirumstances or one particular set of laws from one country and say, "Now let us use them in this country". What the Americans do about the CIA, and how they carry out their protection, is a matter for them. I have no doubt the whole series of the ways in which they operate is different from the way in which we operate. We are trying to make it right for this country.
Of course the noble Lord is perfectly entitled to say that he thinks that the American system is better. He may think that the French system is better or that the Singapore system is better. We must try to see what our system is and how it can be best organised. I return to the point that if the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will address himself to Clause 1 of the Bill, it says:
"A person who is or has been—
(a) a member of the security and intelligence services … is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he discloses any information".
I believe that is right, not only from the point of view of speaking but also from the point of view of writing.
Lord Elton: In case my noble friend Lord Thomas of Swynnerton is minded to move to a Division—which I hope he is not—can my noble friend the Minister clarify one point? I think he welcomed the suggestion from my noble friend Lord Home that
1082
what was wanted was an informal route which might after all be provided by subsection (1) of the amendment on its own. Then I wondered whether even that was necessary because my noble friend was talking about undertakings in another place about exceptional circumstances providing the occasion for permission. However, Clause 7(1) states:
"For the purposes of this Act a disclosure by—
(a) a Crown servant … is made with lawful authority if, and only if, it is made in accordance with his official duty".
There is no question there of there being any waiver of that restriction. I think it would be helpful to the Members of the Committee who have read that and also Clause 1 to be assured that there is an informal route where permission can be given to a Crown servant or a person such as is described in Clause 7(1)(b) if the occasion should arise.
Earl Ferrers: The point which I welcomed in the intervention of my noble friend Lord Home was that he thought it was inadvisable to put too many pressures on a Secretary of State in the statute. I think that he was right over that. The method by which permission is given is perfectly plain. It is that the person concerned must go to the department in which he is employed and seek its permission.
Lord Elton: With respect, we do not read it like that. If he has been a Crown servant he can no longer get that clearance because it is no longer his official duty to do anything with regard to the department. He has lawful authority "if"—and these are the exclusive words—
"and only if, it is made in accordance with his official duty".
The provision does not refer to any permission or waiver by the Secretary of State or anybody else.
Earl Ferrers: If a Crown servant wishes to divulge information which he obtained during his time as a Crown servant, he refers to the department from which he came in order to obtain permission.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton:I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Ferrers for his reply to the debate. I, like my noble friend Lord Dacre of Glanton, did not find the discussion particularly encouraging. When in his reply the noble Earl talked about the need to avoid leaks and unauthorised disclosures, I think we were in favour of what he said. But we are concerend that these disclosures should be authorised and be proper.
I feel that when my noble friend examines the course of the debate he will find that the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, drew particular attention to what seemed to us to be a discrepancy anyway in the approach between the Minister of State at the Home Office in his speech in another place on the Second Reading on 21st December and the speech he made subsequently, also in another place, on 25th January on the first day of the Committee stage. It certainly seemed to those of us who read the debate in another place that there was a shift in the Government's position. Will the Minister consider that question?
8 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I apologise. I forgot to answer that point of the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. During the Second Reading debate on 21stDecember the Minister of State gave an account of the procedure which governs the position where a member or a former member of the security and intelligence services is considering writing a book touching on his work in the services. Later, in Committee when the issue was being specifically debated, he made it clear that the policy was that authorisation for such publications would be rare and would be given only in exceptional circumstances. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary subsequently confirmed that policy. I do not think there was any change of heart between those statements.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: In view of the fact that this amendment was originally put down by my noble friend Lord Bethell, my noble friend Lord Dacre of Glanton and I will not be pressing this amendment to a Division. However, I think that my noble friend Lord Bethell would like to feel free to have the Chamber's judgment on this matter later during the Report stage, if that is appropriate. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alport): Is it your Lordships' pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn?
Noble Lords: No!
The Deputy Chairman of Committees:I did not hear very clearly what the noble Lord said. The amendment, I believe, was withdrawn.
Lord Harris of Greenwich:I must say with great respect that the matter is still before the Chamber. The Government Chief Whip has just come in and encouraged the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to prevent his noble friend from withdrawing this amendment because the initiator of this proposal could not, as it happened, be here today. That is most ungracious behaviour. I very much hope that the Government will not try to object to this amendment being withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers:I shall try to take the steam out of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. The last thing I wish to do is to cause any dissension about a matter on which he and a number of other Members of the Committee feel strongly. I shall not press the matter.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton:I should say that my noble friend Lord Ferrers did not himself persuade me to withdraw this amendment, but I felt that in the circumstances it would be an appropriate thing to do. It was certainly my decision not to press the amendment on this occasion.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 ["Crown servant" and "government contractor"]:
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 10, line 4, at end insert ("provided that he has been notified in writing that he is a Crown Servant for the purposes of this Act;").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 refer to Clause 12(1)(f) and 12(1)(g) which allow the Secretary of State to prescribe classes of employees or office holders who are to be treated as Crown servants for the "purposes of this Act".
There is no requirement to notify such people that they have been prescribed. These amendments would require them to have been notified before they could be prosecuted as Crown servants. Perhaps I should add that a person who has not been notified could still be prosecuted for an improper disclosure, but the prosecution would have to be for an offence under Clause 5 of the Bill, which applies to any person and puts a rather greater burden of proof on the prosecution, rather than under earlier clauses which are concerned with offences committed by Crown servants.
Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 require employees of government contractors to have been notified that they are such before they can be prosecuted for the specific offences that may be committed by government contractors and their employees. An employee of a firm producing, for example, computer equipment for the Ministry of Defence may have no idea who the ultimate customer is or that he is the employee of a government contractor. Even if not notified, he could be prosecuted for an improper disclosure under Clause 5, but again that would be subject to the more favourable burden of proof in that clause. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers:These amendments relate to those who are separately prescribed under Clause 12(1)(f) or (g) of the Bill because they need to be treated as Crown servants for the purposes of the legislation but who do not come within the definition of Crown servants given in the earlier parts of the subsection.
There are two circumstances in which someone may be prescribed as a Crown servant. The first is in paragraph (f). This permits a person to be treated as a Crown servant only if the prescription order identifies, first, the body or class of bodies of which he is a member or by whom he is employed, and, secondly, either if he is individually prescribed or if he is within a class of members or employees which is prescribed.
Paragraph (g) is necessary to deal with the position of an office holder and his employees, as office holders are themselves neither members of a body nor employees and so cannot come under paragraph (f). Accordingly it permits the office holder to be prescribed and either all or some of his employees also to be prescribed. Employees cannot be prescribed unless the office holder is himself prescribed.
Clause 14 provides that the power is exercisable by the Secretary of State by order, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. This Chamber will

1085
therefore have the opportunity to consider, and to decide whether to approve, those whom the Government propose to prescribe. Prescription cannot of course come into effect unless and until it has been approved by Parliament.
The prescription power is an alternative approach to that adopted in legislation which has been passed since 1911 and which establishes various bodies and organisations in their own statute. That legislation has provided that the members and employees of those bodies and authorities shall be subject to Section 2 of the 1911 Act. An example is the staff of the Post Office, for which the Post Office Act 1969 makes such provision. These provisions are to be repealed by Schedule 2 to this Bill. They will be replaced where necessary by the more specific and selective approach in the prescription power in the Bill.
I am not aware of any suggestion in the past that people who are made subject to Section 2 by legislation approved by Parliament need also to be individually notified, or that its lack has ever caused any difficulty. The fact that Parliament has decided the matter in a statute has been thought sufficient. Of course in practice the administrative procedures of these organisations ensure that every employee is aware of the terms and conditions of his service, including his liability under official secrets legislation.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Naturally we shall consider very carefully what the Minister has said. However, in the light of his explanation of what is proposed, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 42 to 44 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Other interpretation provisions]:
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington Lord Hutchinson of Lullington moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 10, leave out lines 33 and 34.
The noble Lord said: This is the interpretation clause. The very first interpretation concerns the words "disclose" and "disclosure". Clause 13(1) concerns the words:
" 'disclose' and 'disclosure', in relation to a document or other article, including parting with possession of it".
The amendment seeks to remove those wide words from the definition. They have been much criticised already. The Law Society of Scotland has described them as words which have a strained and unnatural meaning. I ask the Minister what would happen if the document is stolen, in spite of every proper precaution having been taken.
What happens if it is mislaid by somebody in whose care it has been placed, for example, in a safe which has nothing to do with the person concerned? There is no defence to deal with the situation in which a person parts with possession of the document in spite of having shown reasonable care, or if it happens by accident or with reasonable cause.
Talking of strained language, throughout the Bill is a "damaging disclosure" now to be a "damaging parting with possession"? Is an "unauthorised disclosure" now to be an "unauthorised parting with possession"? I suggest that that is somewhat nonsensical. The amendment seeks to remove those nonsensical words. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, has said, I hope that the Government will not accept the amendment. The definition as it stands has the great advantage of removing any doubt as to whether parting with possession amounts to disclosure. In some circumstances it could amount to disclosure. Therefore I believe that we should keep it in the Bill.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for his brief intervention in this matter. Certainly the words "disclose" and "disclosure" take their natural meaning; that is, one of revealing information to another person. That is perfectly sufficient when one is dealing with information which can be imparted by word of mouth. But, as those who have considered this Bill will appreciate, the disclosure offences in the Bill also relate to documents and other articles. One can disclose a document by putting it in front of another person and allowing that person to read it. Equally one may also hand it over without explaining its contents, or one may disclose it, as it were, at one remove by sending it through the post in a sealed envelope; or it may be that the article is, say, a computer disk or a detailed model of a new weapons system which again is handed over or passed on. Are all those actions, strictly speaking, disclosures? The purpose of the provision in Clause 13(1) is to make it clear that for the purposes of this Bill they are, as they clearly must be.
I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, that I am aware of the points that have been made by the Law Society of Scotland. I hope that I can reassure him that it is not intended—and I do not believe it is a proper construction of this provision—to require that inadvertent disclosure should be covered. Someone who was carrying a document and was assaulted and robbed of the document would not be regarded as parting with possession. That situation would not give rise to any criminal offence under the terms of the Bill. Given the type of documents and the various items that could be passed on and disclosed at one remove, it seems to me that, as my noble friend Lord Renton has said, it is an appropriate definition to have in this Bill.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: The noble Lord says that losing the document, the document being taken away or the document being mislaid would not amount to disclosure within the definition. He says that at the Dispatch Box. However, this is a word which will have to be interpreted in a court of law. With the greatest possible respect, I see no reason, on the basis of the face of the Bill, for being able to take that view. To put a document in a brown envelope and send it to someone or to place it before them in a court of law would be regarded as

1087
disclosing it. It is entirely a question for the court to decide. Was that disclosure or was it not disclosure? That is what a court would have to decide without those additional words. In every case one would say, "It was put in an envelope, it was placed before someone, is that disclosure?" The jury would say yes or no. As the Bill now stands the jury would be told that disclosure means parting with possession, full stop. There could be no interpretation.
However, there we are. At this hour of the night I shall not pursue the matter. It may well be that we shall return to it. I should be most grateful if the noble Lord would have another look at the matter, particularly having regard to the Law Society of Scotland's observations. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes past eight o'clock.

  PRELIMINARY COURT PROCEEDINGS IN NORTHERN IRELAND
  PRELIMINARY COURT PROCEEDINGS IN NORTHERN IRELAND
  WOMEN OFFENDERS: SENTENCING POLICY
  WOMEN OFFENDERS: SENTENCING POLICY
  COVENT GARDEN: CAR PARK PROPOSAL
  COVENT GARDEN: CAR PARK PROPOSAL
  GROUND WATER BENEATH LONDON
  GROUND WATER BENEATH LONDON
  WATER INDUSTRY PRIVATISATION
  WATER INDUSTRY PRIVATISATION
  CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT: EC DIRECTIVE
  CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT: EC DIRECTIVE
  TRANSGENIC ANIMALS AND ANIMAL FEED
  TRANSGENIC ANIMALS AND ANIMAL FEED
  PARLIAMENTARY PRIVATE SECRETARIES
  PARLIAMENTARY PRIVATE SECRETARIES